Social and Natural Sciences Differ in Their Research Strategies,Adapted to Work for Different Knowledge Landscapes

Do different fields of knowledge require different research strategies? A numerical model exploring different virtual knowledge landscapes, revealed two diverging optimal search strategies. Trend following is maximized when the popularity of new discoveries determine the number of individuals researching it. This strategy works best when many researchers explore few large areas of knowledge. In contrast, individuals or small groups of researchers are better in discovering small bits of information in dispersed knowledge landscapes. Bibliometric data of scientific publications showed a continuous bipolar distribution of these strategies, ranging from natural sciences, with highly cited publications in journals containing a large number of articles, to the social sciences, with rarely cited publications in many journals containing a small number of articles. The natural sciences seem to adapt their research strategies to landscapes with large concentrated knowledge clusters, whereas social sciences seem to have adapted to search in landscapes with many small isolated knowledge clusters. Similar bipolar distributions were obtained when comparing levels of insularity estimated by indicators of international collaboration and levels of country-self citations: researchers in academic areas with many journals such as social sciences, arts and humanities, were the most isolated, and that was true in different regions of the world. The work shows that quantitative measures estimating differences between academic disciplines improve our understanding of different research strategies, eventually helping interdisciplinary research and may be also help improve science policies worldwide.     

Mental well-being in settings of 'complex emergency': an overview

The mental state of people affected by war and other disasters has been a subject of special interest to academic researchers and practitioners in humanitarian assistance and public health for over two decades. The last decade in particular has seen a rise in the number of papers published in scholarly journals around the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) debate. Anthropologists have rarely engaged in this debate. Nevertheless, some of the most illuminating contributions have come from socio-medical anthropology (Last, 2000). This volume brings together a wide range of disciplines in the human sciences to address some of the key questions that bear upon the mental health and well-being of populations affected by war and displacement, with contributions from applied biosocial and medical anthropology (Almedom; Lewando-Hundt et al.); applied psychology/public health and social psychiatry (Carballo et al.; Snider et al.; Fullilove et al.); social work (Ahearn & Noble); and political sciences (Pupavac). The four themes that run through this set of papers (outlined below) remain topical areas of contention in contemporary humanitarianism. Scholars and practitioners in the biosocial sciences may wish to engage in the empirical study of human (if not humanitarian) responses to disaster focusing on questions as yet unanswered.     

Introduction to Biostatistics—An Annotated Bibliography for Medical Researchers

Biostatistical methods have become thoroughly integrated into modern biomedical and clinical research. Nevertheless, every observer who has evaluated articles in medical journals has noted that as many as half the reported results were based on questionable statistical analysis. This situation, combined with the fact that most errors involve relatively simple statistical procedures, points to the need for researchers and practitioners to be able to personally judge the quality of the statistical analyses in what they read. Fortunately, there are several excellent papers and texts available for those interested.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

A prospective multiple case study of the impact of emerging scientific evidence on established colorectal cancer screening programs: a study protocol

In this editorial, we reflect on the arguments for starting a scientific society focused on research on how to improve healthcare. This society would take an inclusive approach to what constitutes healthcare. For instance, it should include mental health healthcare, treatment for substance abuse, the work of allied health professions, and preventive healthcare. The society would be open to researchers from all traditions. Thus, we take an inclusive approach to what constitutes scientific research, as long as it uses rigorous methods, is focused on improving healthcare, and aims at knowledge that can be transferred across settings. The society would primarily target scientific researchers but would invite others with an interest in this area of research, regardless of their discipline, position, field of application, or group affiliation (e.g., improvement science, behavioral medicine, knowledge translation). A society would need fruitful collaboration with related societies and organizations, which may include having combined meetings. Special links may be developed with one or more journals. A website to provide information on relevant resources, events, and training opportunities is another key activity. It would also provide a voice for the field at funding agencies, political arenas, and similar institutions. An organizational structure and financial resources are required to develop and run these activities. Our aim is to start an international debate, to discover if we can establish a shared vision across academics and stakeholders engaged with creating scientific knowledge on how to improve healthcare. We invite readers to express their views in the online questionnaire accessed by following the URL link provided at the end of the editorial.     

Species Distribution Models and Impact Factor Growth in Environmental Journals: Methodological Fashion or the Attraction of Global Change Science

In this work, I evaluate the impact of species distribution models (SDMs) on the current status of environmental and ecological journals by asking the question to which degree development of SDMs in the literature is related to recent changes in the impact factors of ecological journals. The hypothesis evaluated states that research fronts are likely to attract research attention and potentially drive citation patterns, with journals concentrating papers related to the research front receiving more attention and benefiting from faster increases in their impact on the ecological literature. My results indicate a positive relationship between the number of SDM related articles published in a journal and its impact factor (IF) growth during the period 2000–09. However, the percentage of SDM related papers in a journal was strongly and positively associated with the percentage of papers on climate change and statistical issues. The results support the hypothesis that global change science has been critical in the development of SDMs and that interest in climate change research in particular, rather than the usage of SDM per se, appears as an important factor behind journal IF increases in ecology and environmental sciences. Finally, our results on SDM application in global change science support the view that scientific interest rather than methodological fashion appears to be the major driver of research attraction in the scientific literature.     

科技考古研究范式之思考

范式自20世纪60年代创立以来,已普遍使用于多个科学研究领域,并于七八十年代引入至考古学。目前,国内外学界对考古学的研究范式有不少讨论,但对科技考古的研究范式的认知仍属空白。本文在简要介绍科学研究范式和考古学研究范式的基础上,首次提出了科技考古研究的3种范式,即科技范式、考古范式、科技考古融合范式,详细阐述了3种研究范式的理论、方法、实践等。此外,本文还指出：科技范式是推动科技考古研究发展的“发动机”,考古范式是掌控科技考古研究方向的“方向盘”,而科技考古融合范式则是协调科技考古各研究领域的“中控台”,真正让科技与考古融为一体。最后,笔者还对在科技考古研究范式下如何构建研究人员的知识体系提出了一些看法。     

2019年中国植物科学若干领域重要研究进展

2019年中国植物科学家在国际综合性学术期刊及植物科学主流期刊发表的论文数量大幅增加, 在光生物学、植物抗逆和分子进化等若干领域取得了重要成果。其中, 硅藻光合膜蛋白超分子结构和功能研究入选2019年度中国科学十大进展和中国生命科学十大进展; 植物抗病小体的结构与功能研究入选2019年度中国生命科学十大进展。该文评述了2019年中国科学家在植物科学若干领域取得的重要研究进展, 以期追踪和报道当前中国植物科学领域发展的前沿和热点及展示中国科学家所取得的辉煌成果。     

Confundiendo al confuso: reflexiones sobre el factor de impacto,el índice h(irsch), el valor Q y otros cofactores que influyen en la felicidad del investigador

BackgroundThe need to evaluate curricula for sponsorship for research projects or professional promotion, has led to the search for tools that allow an objective valuation. However, the total number papers published, or citations of articles of a particular author, or the impact factor of the Journal where they are published are inadequate indicators for the evaluation of the quality and productivity of researchers. The h index, proposed by Hirsch, categorises the papers according to the number of citations per article. This tool appears to lack the limitations of other bibliometric tools but is less useful for non English-speaking authors.AimsTo propose and debate the usefulness of the existing bibliometric indicators and tools for the evaluation and categorization of researchers and scientific journals.MethodsSearch for papers on bibliometric tools.ResultsThere are some hot spots in the debate on the national and international evaluation of researchers’ productivity and quality of scientific journals. Opinions on impact factors and h index have been discussed. The positive discrimination, using the Q value, is proposed as an alternative for the evaluation of Spanish and Iberoamerican researchers.ConclusionsIt is very important de-mystify the importance of bibliometric indicators. The impact factor is useful for evaluating journals from the same scientific area but not for the evaluation of researchers’ curricula. For the comparison of curricula from two or more researchers, we must use the h index or the proposed Q value. the latter allows positive discrimination of the task for Spanish and Iberoamerican researchers.     

国际生物信息学研究的可视化分析

利用当前主流的信息可视化分析软件Cite Space对2005~2014年间SCI收录的生物信息学的5种高影响力外文期刊所刊载论文的题录数据进行统计和可视化分析,绘制该领域的关键词共现、膨胀词共现、经典文献共现、高被引文献共现和关键节点文献共现的网络可视化图谱,试图揭示生物信息学领域的研究热点、研究前沿以及知识基础,以期帮助研究人员了解该领域在国际范围内的研究态势。     

The scientific research on rhodolith beds: A review through bibliometric network analysis

Rhodolith beds are benthic biogenic calcareous habitats formed by the aggregation of unattached, non-geniculate coralline algae. They have a worldwide distribution and, due to their 3D structural complexity and functioning, they provide several ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning and regulating). Recently, their importance and vulnerability have been internationally recognized by international policy and scientific research, and more attention has been drawn to their investigation and conservation. In this study, we conducted a systematic review integrated with a bibliometric analysis of the academic literature related to rhodolith beds. The analysis was based on published literature data over the period 1965–2022, and allowed the generation of maps based on network data displaying the relationships among countries, researchers, keywords, and scientific journals. A total of 853 publications were identified, revealing that scientific research on rhodolith beds is still relatively limited if compared to other coastal vegetated habitats (e.g., seagrass beds, kelp forests), although it has increased over time. Results showed that the scientific documents were published by 77 countries, 2255 researchers, and 279 journals. USA led the research production in this field with 159 documents and 4802 citations, and Amado-Filho was the most productive author with 36 documents and 1126 citations. The co-occurrence network map of keywords showed that the main research fields linked to rhodolith beds are geology, paleontology, algal taxonomy, community ecology, conservation, and physiology. The results also highlighted that most focus on the subject is recently shifting from geological and paleontological aspects to molecular taxonomic, conservation, and ecophysiological ones, while studies on the current topics of ecosystem services and carbon sequestration are still very limited.     

Mobility and International Collaboration: Case of the Mexican Scientific Diaspora

We use a data set of Mexican researchers working abroad that are included in the Mexican National System of Researchers (SNI). Our diaspora sample includes 479 researchers, most of them holding postdoctoral positions in mainly seven countries: USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Canada and Brazil. Their research output and impact is explored in order to determine their patterns of production, mobility and scientific collaboration as compared with previous studies of the SNI researchers in the periods 1991–2001 and 2003–2009. Our findings confirm that mobility has a strong impact on their international scientific collaboration. We found no substantial influence among the researchers that got their PhD degrees abroad from those trained in Mexican universities. There are significant differences among the areas of knowledge studied: biological sciences, physics and engineering have better production and impact rates than mathematics, geosciences, medicine, agrosciences, chemistry, social sciences and humanities. We found a slight gender difference in research production but Mexican female scientists are underrepresented in our diaspora sample. These findings would have policy implications for the recently established program that will open new academic positions for young Mexican scientists.     

Impact fact-or fiction?

The Journal Impact Factor dominates research assessment in many disciplines and in many countries. While research assessment will always have to rely to some extent on quantitative, standardized metrics, the focus on this single measure has gone so far as to hamper and distort scientific research. The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), signed by influential journals, funders, academic institutions and individuals across the natural sciences, aims to raise awareness and to redress the use of non‐objective research assessment practices.     

Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals

ABSTRACT: Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users -- people and machines -- of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.     

Reinventing Biostatistics Education for Basic Scientists

Numerous studies demonstrating that statistical errors are common in basic science publications have led to calls to improve statistical training for basic scientists. In this article, we sought to evaluate statistical requirements for PhD training and to identify opportunities for improving biostatistics education in the basic sciences. We provide recommendations for improving statistics training for basic biomedical scientists, including: 1. Encouraging departments to require statistics training, 2. Tailoring coursework to the students’ fields of research, and 3. Developing tools and strategies to promote education and dissemination of statistical knowledge. We also provide a list of statistical considerations that should be addressed in statistics education for basic scientists.     

生物多样性相关传统知识研究热点与前沿的可视化分析

传统知识研究目前已经成为生物多样性保护研究的热点领域, 并对生态系统服务管理、社区可持续发展等领域产生了重要影响。本文以Web of Science (WoS)数据库为数据源, 应用WoS自带的统计分析功能和可视化分析软件CiteSpace III, 采用关键词共现分析、突现词分析、文献共被引分析等方法对传统知识的研究态势、研究热点以及知识演进进行系统分析。研究发现, 传统知识研究的文献数量呈逐年上升趋势; 中国科学院、墨西哥国立自治大学、印度农业研究理事会、加州大学系统等研究机构在该领域表现出较强的科研实力; 非洲、南美洲的巴西、玻利维亚以及亚洲的印度等地区为传统知识研究的热点区域; Albuquerque UP、Singh R、薛达元在该领域发表的学术论文最多; Berkes F、Drew JA、Gómez-Baggethun E等学者发表的论文为该领域知识基础的构建及相关研究的推进奠定了坚实的基础。与生物资源管理、生物多样性保护、生态系统服务和人类福祉、政策管理等相关的传统知识研究是未来该领域的重要方向。     

The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.     

基于文献计量的植物雌雄异株研究进展

雌雄异株植物是研究植物性别的理想材料,同时作为生态系统的重要组成部分,对生物多样性的维持与保护起着重要作用。该文从文献计量学角度综述了雌雄异株植物相关研究的进展。通过检索Web of Science(WOS)平台的SCI-E数据库和CNKI数据库的有关雌雄异株研究的文献数据,从文献年代分布、期刊分布、研究国家与机构、核心作者和高引论文等方面进行了分析,并借助CitespaceⅢ信息可视化软件绘制雌雄异株植物研究的科学知识图谱,总结了雌雄异株研究的热点和前沿。结果表明:WOS数据库中,雌雄异株植物研究呈现快速上升趋势,就发文总量来看,发文前五的国家为美国、日本、加拿大、英格兰和中国。其中,美国发文量占比为31.03%;中国科学院为发文量最多的机构,发文占比3.36%,其次为牛津大学(2.613%),多伦多大学位列第三(2.427%);中国,巴西和印度三国,西班牙马萨里克大学和北京林业大学两个研究机构近5年来在该领域发文增量较快。论文主要集中在植物科学、环境科学与生态学和遗传学等学科。载文量前十位的期刊累计载文占比高达24.13%,发文量最多的期刊为American Journal of Botany,占总发文量的6.07%,其次为Evolution(2.80%),Annals of Botany(2.52%)排名第三。发文最多的作者为捷克科学院的VYSKOT B,发文占总数的2.57%,高引论文大多出自美国学者之手。从CNKI数据库看,西华师范大学、北京林业大学和河南师范大学发文数量位列前三,发文量最高的期刊为《生命世界》,占总发文量的3.00%。综合Web of Science和CNKI两大数据库的文献来看,青杨和番木瓜作为研究雌雄异株植物的模式植物,近年发文较多。当前的研究热点主要集中在雌雄性别决定,繁殖代价,雌雄个体对环境因子的响应差异等方面。