Bioorganic chemistry: Institutes,journals, publications,a short scientific metric analysis <Emphasis Type="Italic">on the 50th anniversary of the Institute of Natural Compound Chemistry,Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry</Emphasis>

An attempt to illustrate the development of bioorganic chemistry in Russia and all over the world has been made. The development of a new field of science was accompanied by the emergence of specialized journals, organizations, departments and institutions for research in this field. A brief report about the four most important world journals on bioorganic chemistry is represented. The analysis of publications of world scientific institutions, having the word “bioorganic” in their title since 1972 to the middle of 2008, has been made with the help of information from Web Science. The publication distribution among countries, institutions, languages, journals, and the list of the most productive authors clearly demonstrate the leading role of the USSR and Russia and of the Institute of Natural Compound Chemistry, Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, in the creation and development of this field of science in the world. The publication distribution among the areas of knowledge displays a close connection between bioorganic chemistry and a number of the other fields of science, first of all, biochemistry and molecular biology, and also organic chemistry.     

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。     

2016年中国植物科学若干领域重要研究进展

2016年中国植物科学持续稳步发展, 表现在中国植物科学家在国际主流高影响力学术期刊发表文章的数量稳中有升, 中国植物科学领域的期刊逆风出行, 进入研究性期刊世界前三甲行列。中国科学家在植物学诸多领域取得了丰硕的成果。水稻(Oryza sativa)产量性状杂种优势的分子遗传机制解析入选2016年中国科学十大进展; 植物受精过程中雌雄配子体信号识别机制的研究和独脚金内酯的受体感知机制入选2016年生命科学十大进展。我国植物科学, 特别是以水稻为代表的作物研究在国际学术界已占有一席之地。例如, 在水稻组学(如基因组和转录组等)资源和技术平台的建立、重测序的开发及功能基因的克隆和调控网络的解析方面取得了系列重要成果(如揭示了独脚金内酯信号转导的“去抑制化激活”机制、从分子水平上阐释了水稻籼粳杂种不育和广亲和性基因S5的作用机理及发现了控制水稻耐冷的基因组位点), 已经引领世界水稻乃至作物科学研究。该文对2016年中国本土植物科学若干领域取得的重要研究进展进行了概括性评述, 旨在全面追踪当前中国植物科学领域的发展前沿和研究热点, 与读者共享我国科学家所取得的杰出成就。     

Preparing for Preprints

Preprints reduce delays in sharing research results and increase the amount and diversity of data available to the scientific community. Support of this communication mechanism through appropriate policies by journals, funders and institutions will encourage community engagement. Widespread adoption would benefit both individual scientists and research, and it might improve publishing in scientific journals. Preprints are one step towards an Open Science future.     

基于文献计量学的百合属植物研究态势分析

基于Web of Science（简称WoS）核心数据库检索了1998-2018年间百合属植物文献,利用CiteSpace软件从国家、机构、作者、期刊以及高被引文章等方面进行了文献计量学统计分析。1998-2018年间共发表百合属植物文章1 058篇,2006年后中国发表文章数量居榜首并呈波动增长,中国科学院发表的文章数量在研究机构中排名第一。排名前2位的作者均来自荷兰瓦赫宁根大学。发文量及影响力最大的期刊是Scientia Horticulturae。发文量前10位的研究百合属植物的文章80%属于基础科学和技术科学,研究热点集中于形态学、细胞和分子生物学方向。近5年被引频次最多的高被引论文集中在百合属植物活性物质的功能验证、活性成分及其在营养健康方面的功效等方向,这些领域成为百合属植物研究的新趋势。     

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.     

Trends on enzyme immobilization researches based on bibliometric analysis

In this survey, a bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on enzyme immobilization researches was developed using Web of Science© database. The time-span comprised the period from 1991 to 2017. A total of 9636 documents related to the subject were retrieved and analyzed according to seven main aspects: publication years, journals, countries, authors, organizations, keywords, and Web of Science categories. The results indicated that the countries with the highest number of publications were China and the United States. The most expressive international collaborative networks were evidenced between Brazil and Spain and between the USA and China. Additionally, the Spanish researchers were the ones that contributed most to this domain, while the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas and the Chinese Academy of Sciences were the most emblematic organizations. Finally, the analysis of keywords revealed that biosensor, lipase and glucose oxidase were the most cited terms among all publications, and also indicated the existence of a possible knowledge gap involving the terms Escherichia coli, Candida rugosa lipase and cytochrome-c in the context of enzyme immobilization. This study was efficient to evaluate the trends of the body of literature on enzyme immobilization research, subsidizing future decision-making in this field of science.     

The reality of scientific research in Latin America; an insider’s perspective

There is tremendous disparity in scientific productivity among nations, particularly in Latin America. At first sight, this could be linked to the relative economic health of the different countries of the region, but even large and relatively rich Latin American countries do not produce a good level of science. Although Latin America has increased the number of its scientists and research institutions in recent years, the gap between developed countries and Latin American countries is startling. The prime importance of science and technology to the development of a nation remains unacknowledged. The major factors contributing to low scientific productivity are the limited access to grant opportunities, inadequate budgets, substandard levels of laboratory infrastructure and equipment, the high cost and limited supply of reagents, and inadequate salaries and personal insecurity of scientists. The political and economic instability in several Latin America countries results in a lack of long-term goals that are essential to the development of science. In Latin America, science is not an engine of the economy. Most equipment and supplies are imported, and national industries are not given the incentives to produce these goods at home. It is a pity that Latin American society has become accustomed to expect new science and technological developments to come from developed countries rather than from their own scientists. In this article, we present a critical view of the Latin American investigator’s daily life, particularly in the area of biomedicine. Too many bright young minds continue to leave Latin America for developed countries, where they are very successful. However, we still have many enthusiastic young graduates who want to make a career in science and contribute to society. Governments need to improve the status of science for the sake of these young graduates who represent the intellectual and economic future of their countries.     

基于文献计量分析的生态系统服务研究现状及热点

生态系统服务是生态学研究的核心和热点议题。近年来,各国和各相关机构对生态系统服务的研究力度不断加大。基于SCI-E和CNKI数据库,利用文献计量方法,分析了国内外生态系统服务研究的发展特征和变化趋势。研究结果表明:(1)国内外生态系统服务研究的发文量不断增加,发展态势良好。(2)发达国家是生态系统服务领域的主要研究力量,美国占据绝对领先地位;美国的加利福尼亚大学是主要研究机构;总体来看,国家和机构间的合作正在不断增强。(3)当前该领域的8类研究热点分别是生态系统服务机理研究,保护管理及可持续性、生物多样性、脆弱性、土地利用及景观变化、评估与模型、气候变化、政策与决策分析。从各个时期国内外研究热点整体分布情况来看,国际更侧重于生态系统服务及生态系统服务与人类福祉的依存关系的研究,国内则更加关注生态系统服务评估。(4)近年来中国在生态系统服务研究领域的国际地位有所提升,科研产出量显著增加,累积发文量居世界第5位,中国科学院是全球主要研究机构之一,但论文被引频次相对偏低,国际合作亟待加强和提升。     

中国森林生物多样性监测网络(CForBio)的研究态势与热点: 基于文献计量分析

中国森林生物多样性监测网络(CForBio)作为我国生物多样性科学综合研究平台, 其发展过程和研究成果对促进我国生物多样性研究具有重要意义, 掌握其研究态势与热点变化可为CForBio的长远发展以及其他生态监测研究提供参考。本文对2007-2017年间CNKI数据库和Web of Science核心合集数据库中CForBio发表的论文进行了较为全面的文献计量分析。结果表明: 2007年以来, CForBio发表论文的数量整体上呈快速上升趋势, 从2007年的3篇增长到2017年的55篇, 其中SCI收录论文的增长较为明显(从2007年的1篇增长到2017年的34篇)。金光泽(70篇)、马克平(68篇)、郝占庆(68篇)等学者发表论文数量较多, 中国科学院的植物研究所(104篇)、沈阳应用生态研究所(67篇)、华南植物园(59篇)等是CForBio中相对活跃的研究机构, 但各样地负责机构和学者间的合作仍较少, 跨机构间的协同研究还有待提高。CForBio的研究热点主要体现在树木空间分布格局、植物功能性状、树木密度制约、群落系统发育等方面, 为揭示我国不同气候带森林群落构建机制提供了大量的理论依据。未来CForBio的研究应加强国内外机构间的合作创新并建立数据共享途径, 注重近地面遥感、多源数据融合等新技术的应用, 在生物多样性格局的多尺度与多维度解析、植物-土壤反馈机制、树木冠层和根系的结构与功能等方向持续开展深入研究。     

氮肥农学效应与环境效应国际研究发展态势

分析国内外农田氮素农学效应和环境效应研究的发展动态、研究热点,为以后研究农田氮素效应提供参考。基于ISI Web of Science数据库,检索出以"农田氮肥施用"为主题的所有SCI论文(1957—2014年8月),并分别提取出与"农学效应"、"环境效应"、"适宜施氮量"相关的文献,采用计量学方法,分析各研究方向的主要热点、研究机构、发文期刊和高被引论文等。共检索出关于农田施氮研究的SCI文献7460篇,其中与"农学效应"研究相关的文献2773篇,主要涉及到施氮肥对小麦、玉米、水稻、大豆等作物产量、氮素利用率和土壤有机碳的影响;与"环境效应"研究相关的文献1609篇,主要涉及到氮肥施用对氨挥发、硝化反硝化、温室气体排放、硝酸盐淋失、地下水水质等环境因素的影响;与"适宜施氮量"研究相关的文献408篇,主要涉及氮肥施用量、氮肥管理等。刊发各类研究成果最多的机构主要来自欧美发达国家,影响力大的期刊与高被引论文也主要来自欧美国家,中国在该领域的研究发展迅速,以中国科学院、中国农业大学、南京农业大学和中国农业科学院等为代表的中国研究机构的研究水平逐渐进入世界前列。文献计量学可用于分析农田氮素效应主题的研究热点和发展态势,目前氮素农学效应仍是研究的重点,随着当前环境污染问题日益突出,农田氮素环境效应研究越来越多,特别是氮流失对水体水质的影响备受关注,而基于氮素综合效应确定农田适宜施氮量是同时保障粮食安全和环境安全的有效措施。中国在相关研究领域的研究起步较晚,高影响力论文偏少,优秀国际期刊不足,但研究实力不断增加,研究成果也逐渐被国际社会所认可。     

The countries and languages that dominate biological research at the beginning of the 21st century

Traditionally, studies of scientific productivity are biased in two ways: they are based on Current Contents, an index centered in British and American journals, and they seldom correct for population size, ignoring the relative effort that each society places in research. We studied national productivity for biology using a more representative index, the Biological Abstracts, and analyzed both total and relative productivity. English dominates biological publications with 87% (no other individual language reaches 2%). If the USA is considered a region by itself, it occupies the first place in per capita production of biology papers, with at least twice the productivity of either Asia or Europe. Canada, Oceania and Latin America occupy an intermediate position. The global output of scientific papers is dominated by Europe, USA. Japan, Canada, China and India. When corrected for population size, the countries with the greatest productivity of biology papers are the Nordic nations, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Saint Lucia and Montserrat. The predominance of English as the language of biological research found in this study shows a continuation of the trend initiated around the year 1900. The large relative productivity of the USA reflects the importance that American society gives to science as the basis for technological and economic development, but the USA's share of total scientific output has decreased from 44% in 1983 to 34% in 2002, while there is a greater growth of science in India, Japan and Latin America, among others. The increasing share obtained by China and India may reflect a recent change in attitude towards funding science. The leadership of Nordic nations, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands and Australia can be explained by cultural attitude. Apparently, a positive trend is emerging in Latin America, where Chile improved its ranking in per capita productivity but Argentina, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Brazil and Cuba fell. Nevertheless, the most productive countries in total number of papers are Brazil, Mexico and Argentina: large countries with a long tradition of funding scientific research.     

基于CiteSpace的陆地生态系统碳水耦合研究现状及趋势

在全球气候变化的背景下,陆地生态系统碳水耦合研究已引起世界各国学者和研究机构的广泛关注。基于Web of Science核心数据库,运用文献数据可视化应用软件CiteSpace对国际上有关陆地生态系统碳水耦合的研究现状进行分析,旨在探究研究热点及趋势,归纳研究主题演进,了解当前国际研究前沿。研究发现:(1)1999—2018年,关于陆地生态系统碳水耦合的研究论文数量呈现快速增加的趋势,后10年的增加速度快于前10年;形成了以Black TA、Yu GR、Chen JQ为主的核心作者群;中国科学院、中国科学院大学、美国林业局、加州大学伯克利分校、俄勒冈州立大学等发文数量居前的研究机构。(2)从共被引期刊和研究领域可以看出,陆地生态系统碳水耦合研究涉及环境科学与生态学、生态学、环境科学、气象与大气科学、林学、农学及水资源等领域,体现出综合性和交叉性特点。(3)在全球气候变化背景下,目前陆地生态系统碳水耦合关系的研究主要以通量观测站为依托,结合模型模拟、稳定同位素技术、涡度相关技术等研究手段,将单个通量站点联合扩展到多点联网格局,并结合GIS、遥感和模型等方法在面上进行观测与模拟,从而构建更大尺度的碳水资源评价模型。拓展和推移研究的空间尺度,预测时间尺度上的变异规律是近年来新兴的研究热点。     

2021年中国植物科学重要研究进展

2021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相比2020年显著增加, 在雌雄细胞识别与受精、干细胞命运决定、菌根共生、光合膜蛋白复合体、氮磷养分利用、先天免疫、作物从头驯化与基因组设计等方面取得了重要研究进展,“异源四倍体野生稻快速从头驯化”入选2021年度“中国生命科学十大进展”。该文总结了2021年度我国植物科学研究取得的成绩, 简要介绍了30项重要进展, 以帮助读者了解我国植物科学的发展态势, 思考如何更好地将植物科学研究与国家重大需求有效衔接。     

Beyond Paradise—Meeting the Challenges in Tropical Biology in the 21st Century

Tropical ecosystems support a diversity of species and ecological processes that are unparalleled anywhere else on Earth. Despite their tremendous social and scientific importance, tropical ecosystems are rapidly disappearing. To usher tropical ecosystems and the human communities dependent upon them through the environmental transformations of the 21st century, tropical biologists must provide critical knowledge in three areas: 1) the structure and function of tropical ecosystems; 2) the nature and magnitude of anthropogenic effects on tropical ecosystems; and 3) the socio‐economic drivers of these anthropogenic effects. To develop effective strategies for conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of tropical ecosystems, scientific perspectives must be integrated with social necessities. A new set of principles built on a framework for pursuing relevant tropical biological research will facilitate interdisciplinary approaches, integrate biological knowledge with the social sciences, and link science with policy. We propose four broad recommendations for immediate action in tropical biology and conservation that are fundamental to all biological and social disciplines in the tropics: 1) assemble and disseminate information on life's diversity in the tropics; 2) enhance tropical field stations and build a worldwide network to link them with tropical field biologists at their field sites; 3) bring the field of tropical biology to the tropics by strengthening institutions in tropical countries through novel partnerships between tropical and temperate zone institutions and scientists; and 4) create concrete mechanisms to increase interactions between tropical biologists, social scientists, and policy makers.     

A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation

Applying scientific knowledge to confront societal challenges is a difficult task, an issue known as the science–practice gap. In Ecology and Conservation, scientific evidence has been seldom used directly to support decision‐making, despite calls for an increasing role of ecological science in developing solutions for a sustainable future. To date, multiple causes of the science–practice gap and diverse approaches to link science and practice in Ecology and Conservation have been proposed. To foster a transparent debate and broaden our understanding of the difficulties of using scientific knowledge, we reviewed the perceived causes of the science–practice gap, aiming to: (i) identify the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on this problem, (ii) evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and (iii) assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision‐making. We based our review on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science–practice gap extracted from 122 articles and on discussions with eight scientists on how to classify these sentences. The resulting process‐based framework describes three distinct perspectives on the relevant processes, knowledge and actors in the science–practice interface. The most common perspective assumes only scientific knowledge should support practice, perceiving a one‐way knowledge flow from science to practice and recognizing flaws in knowledge generation, communication, and/or use. The second assumes that both scientists and decision‐makers should contribute to support practice, perceiving a two‐way knowledge flow between science and practice through joint knowledge‐production/integration processes, which, for several reasons, are perceived to occur infrequently. The last perspective was very rare, and assumes scientists should put their results into practice, but they rarely do. Some causes (e.g. cultural differences between scientists and decision‐makers) are shared with other disciplines, while others seem specific to Ecology and Conservation (e.g. inadequate research scales). All identified causes require one of three general types of solutions, depending on whether the causal factor can (e.g. inadequate research questions) or cannot (e.g. scientific uncertainty) be changed, or if misconceptions (e.g. undervaluing abstract knowledge) should be solved. The unchanged predominance of the one‐way perspective over time may be associated with the prestige of evidence‐based conservation and suggests that debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards bidirectional views ascribing larger roles to decision‐makers. In turn, the two‐way perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream conservation biology. All perspectives represented superficial views of decision‐making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision‐making contexts, fuzzy science–practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. However, joint knowledge‐production processes from the two‐way perspective can potentially allow for democratic decision‐making processes, explicit discussions of values and multiple types of science use. To broaden our understanding of the interface and foster productive science–practice linkages, we argue for dialogue among different research traditions within Ecology and Conservation, joint knowledge‐production processes between scientists and decision‐makers and interdisciplinarity across Ecology, Conservation and Political Science in both research and education.     

The Professionalization of Science Studies: Cutting Some Slack

During the past hundred years or so, those scholars studying science have isolated themselves as much as possible from scientists as well as from workers in other disciplines who study science. The result of this effort is history of science, philosophy of science and sociology of science as separate disciplines. I argue in this paper that now is the time for these disciplinary boundaries to be lowered or at least made more permeable so that a unified discipline of Science Studies might emerge. I discuss representative problems that stand in the way of such an integration. These problems may seem so formidable in the abstract that no one in their right mind would waste their time trying to bring about a unified field of Science Studies. However, those of us who limit ourselves to the study of the biological sciences have already formed a society in which workers from all disciplines can share their expertise -- the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science.     

Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia

Lower visibility of female scientists, compared to male scientists, is a potential reason for the under‐representation of women among senior academic ranks. Visibility in the scientific community stems partly from presenting research as an invited speaker at organized meetings. We analysed the sex ratio of presenters at the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) Congress 2011, where all abstract submissions were accepted for presentation. Women were under‐represented among invited speakers at symposia (15% women) compared to all presenters (46%), regular oral presenters (41%) and plenary speakers (25%). At the ESEB congresses in 2001–2011, 9–23% of invited speakers were women. This under‐representation of women is partly attributable to a larger proportion of women, than men, declining invitations: in 2011, 50% of women declined an invitation to speak compared to 26% of men. We expect invited speakers to be scientists from top ranked institutions or authors of recent papers in high‐impact journals. Considering all invited speakers (including declined invitations), 23% were women. This was lower than the baseline sex ratios of early‐mid career stage scientists, but was similar to senior scientists and authors that have published in high‐impact journals. High‐quality science by women therefore has low exposure at international meetings, which will constrain Evolutionary Biology from reaching its full potential. We wish to highlight the wider implications of turning down invitations to speak, and encourage conference organizers to implement steps to increase acceptance rates of invited talks.