Correction to: Assessment of cetacean–fishery interactions in the marine food web of the Gulf of Taranto (Northern Ionian Sea,Central Mediterranean Sea)

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries - In the original publication of the article, the given name and surname of the authors are inverted in the author’s affiliation and in the citation of...     

《宋史》人物遗传、疾病和环境对寿限的影响

将《宋史》本纪、列传人物７９３人的寿限按姓氏和阴阳类型及疾病按病因类统计分析。结果表明：⑴赵姓中因为包括了个某种“早卒”遗传病的家族,其寿限平均值较王、李、张、刘、陈等５姓的短,Ｐ＜０．０１或０．０５;而这５姓群体间的平均寿限值均无统计学上的差别,均符合中性等位基因分布的特征。⑵阴阳中和型遗传系统的平均寿限较阳型遗传系统高,Ｐ＜０．０５。⑶疾病与不良环境是寿限的限制因素,提高个体的抗性是长寿的重要     

A critical assessment of the h-index

Editor's suggested further reading in BioEssays: Can we do better than existing author citation metrics? Abstract and Counting citations in texts rather than reference lists to improve the accuracy of assessing scientific contribution Abstract     

Inbreeding avoidance in an isolated indigenous Zapotec community in the valley of Oaxaca, southern Mexico

We analyzed inbreeding using surname isonymy in an indigenous genetic isolate. The subjects were residents of a rural Zapotec-speaking community in the valley of Oaxaca, southern Mexico. The community can be classified as a genetic isolate with an average gene flow of < or = 3% per generation. Surnames were collected for individuals in each household in pedigree form using the culturally traditional patronym-matronym naming. Estimation of inbreeding from surname isonymy is facilitated by the traditional patronym-matronym name assignment among indigenous Mexican populations. A total of 2,149 individuals had valid surname patronym-matronym pairings, including 484 deceased ancestors. Surname isonymy analysis methods were used to estimate total inbreeding and to segregate it into random and nonrandom components. The surname isonymy coefficient computed from 119 isonymous surname pairings (119/2,149) was 0.0554. The estimated inbreeding coefficient from surname isonymy was 0.0138 (0.0554/4). The random and nonrandom components of inbreeding were F(r) = 0.0221 and F(n) = -0.0091, respectively. The results suggest that consanguinity is culturally avoided. Nonrandom inbreeding decreased total inbreeding by about 41%. Total estimated inbreeding by surname isonymy was 0.0138, which is similar to inbreeding estimated from a sample of pedigrees, 0.01. Socially prescribed inbreeding avoidance substantially lowered total F through negative nonrandom inbreeding. Even in the situation of genetic isolation and small effective population size (N(e)), estimated inbreeding is lower than may have otherwise occurred if inbreeding were only random. However, among the poorest individuals, socially prescribed jural rules for inbreeding avoidance failed to operate. Thus the preponderance of inbreeding appears to occur among the poor, economically disadvantaged in the community.     

关于晚古生代圆印木属(石松纲)的命名问题

文章讨论晚古生代木本石松植物圆印木属Cyclostigma命名中存在的突出问题．包括4个方面：1）圆印木属的合格发表和作者引证;2）圆印木属的异名、同名和替代名;3）圆印木属的保留;4）圆印木属的模式。基于相关原始文献和国际植物命名法规．文中澄清了这些命名问题。Hecr在1871年最早合格发表了,圆印木属．故该属应被引证为Cyclostigma Haughton ex Hcer．1871．（或Cyclostigma Hcer,1871）．而不是文献中通常引证的Cyclostigma Haughton．1860（或1859）。圆印木属不宜归入具叶舌的窝木属Botkrodendron Lindlcy et Hutton．1833．二者相关的生殖器官特征差别也较大。圆印木属的3个同名Cyclostigma Hochst．ex EndL．1842（夹竹桃科Apocynaccac）．Cyclostigma Klotzsch ex Sccm,.1853（大戟科Euphorbiaceae）和Cyclostigma Phil．,1870（茄科Solanaceae）住现代被子植物中已不再使用．Cyclostigma Hochst．ex Endl．被提议废弃,后两者为非法名称．这3者分别是更早合格发表的属名Voacang Thouars．1806．Croton L,.1753和Leptoglossi,Benth．,1844的分类学异名。Cyclostigma Haughton ex Heer因住化石石松植物中广为使用已被提议为保留名,它的模式种为基尔托克圆印木C kiltorkense Haughton ex Heer．为晚泥盆世法门期植物群的重要组分或标志化石．具有十分重要的生物地层学意义。比较而言,圆印木属的替代名Jurinodendron Doweld．2001日后被普遍接受的可能性极小。保留广泛使用的圆印木属Cyclostigma有利于命名的稳定性．而且避免了不必要的重新命名。由于圆印木属模式种的原始标本下落不明．一份保存在爱尔兰部柏林三一学院地质博物馆的标本TCD．6012（采自模式产地）被选为新模式。     

JPE Best Paper awards (2020)

Journal of Plant Ecology (JPE) decided to establish awards of JPE Best Papers, in order to thank and encourage authors to submit their valuable research to JPE. This award will be given annually to the first author(s) of 2–5 papers selected by the editors, according to the citation data as well as the impact in the field of plant ecology. We will place extra emphasis on authors who had completed graduate studies not more than 5 years before submission of the paper, to encourage more early-career scientists to submit their work to JPE. It will come with a ‘JPE Best Paper’ certificate, as well as a price money of Chinese RMB 5000. This year, we selected the best papers from all the articles published in the year of 2020. Here, we are delighted to announce the three winners of a ‘JPE Best Paper’ award and highlight the significance of these papers below.     

Citation Classics in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Who Wrote the Top 100 Most Cited Articles?

Background

Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. The aims of this study were to assess whether citation classics exist in published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM), examine the characteristics of the most frequently cited SRM articles, and evaluate the contribution of different world regions.

Methods

The 100 most cited SRM were identified in October 2012 using the Science Citation Index database of the Institute for Scientific Information. Data were extracted by one author. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between years since publication, numbers of authors, article length, journal impact factor, and average citations per year.

Results

Among the 100 citation classics, published between 1977 and 2008, the most cited article received 7308 citations and the least-cited 675 citations. The average citations per year ranged from 27.8 to 401.6. First authors from the USA produced the highest number of citation classics (n=46), followed by the UK (n=28) and Canada (n=15). The 100 articles were published in 42 journals led by the Journal of the American Medical Association (n=18), followed by the British Medical Journal (n=14) and The Lancet (n=13). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between number of authors (Spearman’s rho=0.320, p=0.001), journal impact factor (rho=0.240, p=0.016) and average citations per year. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between average citations per year and year since publication (rho = -0.636, p=0.0001). The most cited papers identified seminal contributions and originators of landmark methodological aspects of SRM and reflect major advances in the management of and predisposing factors for chronic diseases.

Conclusions

Since the late 1970s, the USA, UK, and Canada have taken leadership in the production of citation classic papers. No first author from low or middle-income countries (LMIC) led one of the most cited 100 SRM.     

Impact beyond the impact factor

The journal impact factor is an annually calculated number for each scientific journal, based on the average number of times its articles published in the two preceding years have been cited. It was originally devised as a tool for librarians and publishers to provide information about the citation performance of a journal as a whole, but over the last few decades it has increasingly been used to assess the quality of specific articles and the research performance of individual investigators, institutions, and countries. In addition to this clear abuse of the journal impact factor, several conceptual and technical issues limit its usability as a measure of journal reputation, especially when journals are compared across different fields. An author’s decision regarding the suitability of a scholarly journal for publication should, therefore, be based on the impact that this journal makes in the field of research, rather than on the journal impact factor.     

Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines

Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011–2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.     

A Measure of Total Research Impact Independent of Time and Discipline

Authorship and citation practices evolve with time and differ by academic discipline. As such, indicators of research productivity based on citation records are naturally subject to historical and disciplinary effects. We observe these effects on a corpus of astronomer career data constructed from a database of refereed publications. We employ a simple mechanism to measure research output using author and reference counts available in bibliographic databases to develop a citation-based indicator of research productivity. The total research impact (tori) quantifies, for an individual, the total amount of scholarly work that others have devoted to his/her work, measured in the volume of research papers. A derived measure, the research impact quotient (riq), is an age-independent measure of an individual''s research ability. We demonstrate that these measures are substantially less vulnerable to temporal debasement and cross-disciplinary bias than the most popular current measures. The proposed measures of research impact, tori and riq, have been implemented in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System.     

Corrected author citation for the combination aster section Biotia (Asteraceae)

The author citation for the combination Aster section Biotia is corrected to: DC. ex Torrey & Gray.     

The Measurement of the Effect on Citation Inequality of Differences in Citation Practices across Scientific Fields

This paper has two aims: (i) to introduce a novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields, and (ii) to implement an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in 22 broad fields. The number of citations received by any article is seen as a function of the article’s scientific influence, and the field to which it belongs. A key assumption is that articles in the same quantile of any field citation distribution have the same degree of citation impact in their respective field. Using a dataset of 4.4 million articles published in 1998–2003 with a five-year citation window, we estimate that differences in citation practices between the 22 fields account for 14% of overall citation inequality. Our empirical strategy is based on the strong similarities found in the behavior of citation distributions. We obtain three main results. Firstly, we estimate a set of average-based indicators, called exchange rates, to express the citations received by any article in a large interval in terms of the citations received in a reference situation. Secondly, using our exchange rates as normalization factors of the raw citation data reduces the effect of differences in citation practices to, approximately, 2% of overall citation inequality in the normalized citation distributions. Thirdly, we provide an empirical explanation of why the usual normalization procedure based on the fields’ mean citation rates is found to be equally successful.     

How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals?

The accuracy of quotations and references in six medical journals published during January 1984 was assessed. The original author was misquoted in 15% of all references, and most of the errors would have misled readers. Errors in citation of references occurred in 24%, of which 8% were major errors--that is, they prevented immediate identification of the source of the reference. Inaccurate quotations and citations are displeasing for the original author, misleading for the reader, and mean that untruths become "accepted fact." Some suggestions for reducing these high levels of inaccuracy are that papers scheduled for publication with errors of citation should be returned to the author and checked completely and a permanent column specifically for misquotations could be inserted into the journal.     

宋朝中国人的姓氏分布与群体结构分化

姓氏是一种十分有用的文化遗传因子,它的传递方式类似于Ｙ染色体的表现。１０００年前宋朝（公元９６０￣１１７９年）中国人姓氏频率的分布,是一组十分吻合Ｋａｒｌｉｎ－ＭｃＧｒｅｇｏｒ的中性等位基因分布理论的随机数据。１６个省区的姓氏种类丰度的相对参数α和迁移率的相对参数ｖ的分析,反映了这一时期的中国人群的迁移和人群间混合的程度。姓氏遗传距离和现状聚类图的分析,表明在１０００年前的宋朝中国人群已经形成了南     

Bibliometric data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors

In this paper, we assess the bibliometric parameters of 37 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. Those are the Hirsch index (h-index) based on all papers, the h-index based on first authored papers, the number of papers, the number of citations and the citations per paper. A top 10 for each of the five parameters was compiled. In theory, the same 10 professors might appear in each of these top 10s. Alternatively, each of the 37 professors under assessment could appear one or more times. In practice, we found 22 out of these 37 professors in the 5 top 10s. Thus, there is no golden parameter. In addition, there is too much inhomogeneity in citation characteristics even within a relatively homogeneous group of clinical cardiologists. Therefore, citation analysis should be applied with great care in science policy. This is even more important when different fields of medicine are compared in university medical centres. It may be possible to develop better parameters in the future, but the present ones are simply not good enough. Also, we observed a quite remarkable explosion of publications per author which can, paradoxical as it may sound, probably not be interpreted as an increase in productivity of scientists, but as the effect of an increase in the number of co-authors and the strategic effect of networks.