How Are Academic Age,Productivity and Collaboration Related to Citing Behavior of Researchers?

References are an essential component of research articles and therefore of scientific communication. In this study we investigate referencing (citing) behavior in five diverse fields (astronomy, mathematics, robotics, ecology and economics) based on 213,756 core journal articles. At the macro level we find: (a) a steady increase in the number of references per article over the period studied (50 years), which in some fields is due to a higher rate of usage, while in others reflects longer articles and (b) an increase in all fields in the fraction of older, foundational references since the 1980s, with no obvious change in citing patterns associated with the introduction of the Internet. At the meso level we explore current (2006–2010) referencing behavior of different categories of authors (21,562 total) within each field, based on their academic age, productivity and collaborative practices. Contrary to some previous findings and expectations we find that senior researchers use references at the same rate as their junior colleagues, with similar rates of re-citation (use of same references in multiple papers). High Modified Price Index (MPI, which measures the speed of the research front more accurately than the traditional Price Index) of senior authors indicates that their research has the similar cutting-edge aspect as that of their younger colleagues. In all fields both the productive researchers and especially those who collaborate more use a significantly lower fraction of foundational references and have much higher MPI and lower re-citation rates, i.e., they are the ones pushing the research front regardless of researcher age. This paper introduces improved bibliometric methods to measure the speed of the research front, disambiguate lead authors in co-authored papers and decouple measures of productivity and collaboration.     

《亚热带植物科学》2005—2009年载文与作者计量分析

以《亚热带植物科学》2005～2009年刊载的学术论文数据为样本,采用文献计量学方法,对其近五年的载文、作者、被引、出版时滞等数量指标进行统计分析。2005～2009年《亚热带植物科学》总载文量为463篇,期均发文23.2篇,每篇页数为3.60页。其中,基金资助论文数277篇,基金论文比为59.83%。研究报告是该刊重点栏目,论文篇数占载文量的71.92%,且比重正在加大。论文的出版时滞最长为400 d,最短20 d,平均170.6 d。对该刊论文作者的分析表明,作者合著率较高,为86.18%,但核心作者发文量不多,且其论文质量有待提高。为此,文章对今后编辑工作提出一些改善建议。     

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.     

不懈探索, 努力引领中国生物多样性科学发展——《生物多样性》创刊三十周年回顾

为更好地推动我国生物多样性科学的发展, 提升期刊服务能力, 并庆祝创刊30周年, 我们梳理了《生物多样性》2013-2022年的主要进展。(1)近10年中, 期刊的特色进一步凸显。围绕学科前沿、国家重大行动计划、履约等领域共策划出版56个专辑/专题, 新设立编者按、生物编目、数据论文、保护与治理对策、生物文化多样性等特色栏目, 通过发表数据论文、生物编目等文章推动数据共享, 以及通过鼓励学术争鸣、探索中文期刊的国际传播等举措使期刊的特色进一步凸显。(2)期刊载文量快速增加, 报道的内容不断拓展。研究方向由前20年的61个增加为目前的78个, 90%左右的文章聚焦于生物多样性保护、环境科学/生态学等领域; 植物学、动物学、微生物学的稿件分别占41.79%、47.48%和4.61%。基于关键词的文献计量分析表明, 近10年刊登的文章关键词聚类为遗传多样性、群落结构、红外相机、红色名录、生物多样性公约、国家公园、植物多样性、分类学和地理分布等9个子领域。培养了大批生物多样性人才, 10年中共有4,665位作者署名(作者记录数6,295), 发表文章最多的前20位作者主要来自中国科学院相关研究所、中国环境科学研究院、北京大学等机构, 其中60%为编委。(3)刊登的论文被广泛引用和下载。根据中国知网数据(排除了学位论文和会议论文, 2022年10月18日), 近10年刊登的文章有1,211篇累计被引用13,507次, 平均每篇被引11次以上; 网上下载量从2012年的6.64万次增加到2021年的23.85万次。有5篇文章入选中国科协优秀科技论文或中国百篇最具影响国内学术论文; 以国家公园、红外相机、红色名录、多功能性、生物入侵为关键词的文章是受关注的热点。《生物多样性》的影响因子和总被引频次在生物学领域一直排名前列; 是《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告》中全球保护生物学领域唯一的中国期刊, 2019年和2020年分别位列23/48和25/49位。最后我们探讨了今后如何继续引领中国生物多样性研究和保护、建设一流科技期刊面临的挑战和对策以及如何进一步提升科学传播能力。     

Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys

Objectives To evaluate how acceptable authors find the BMJ''s current practice of publishing short versions of research articles in the paper journal and a longer version on the web and to determine authors'' attitudes towards publishing only abstracts in the paper journal and publishing unedited versions on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication.Design Two cross sectional surveys.Setting General medical journal.Participants Survey 1: corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (electronic long, paper short) process. Survey 2: corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted to BMJ.Results Response rates were 90% (104/115) in survey 1 and 75% (213/283) in survey 2. ELPS is largely acceptable to BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall, 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication.Conclusions It is acceptable to authors to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website. Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version.     

Quantifying shifts in topic popularity over 44 years of Austral Ecology

The Ecological Society of Australia was founded in 1959, and the society’s journal was first published in 1976. To examine how research published in the society’s journal has changed over this time, we used text mining to quantify themes and trends in the body of work published by the Australian Journal of Ecology and Austral Ecology from 1976 to 2019. We used topic models to identify 30 ‘topics’ within 2778 full‐text articles in 246 issues of the journal, followed by mixed modelling to identify topics with above‐average or below‐average popularity in terms of the number of publications or citations that they contain. We found high inter‐decadal turnover in research topics, with an early emphasis on highly specific ecosystems or processes giving way to a modern emphasis on community, spatial and fire ecology, invasive species and statistical modelling. Despite an early focus on Australian research, papers discussing South American ecosystems are now among the fastest‐growing and most frequently cited topics in the journal. Topics that were growing fastest in publication rates were not always the same as those with high citation rates. Our results provide a systematic breakdown of the topics that Austral Ecology authors and editors have chosen to research, publish and cite through time, providing a valuable window into the historical and emerging foci of the journal.     

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Background

The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.

Methods and Findings

We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.     

The feature of papers and citation analysis of eleven journals in tropical medicine indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded

To determine the features of papers, authors, and citation of eleven journals in tropical medicine indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded, the database of the Institute for Scientific Information, we analyzed original articles, editorials, reviews, corrections, letters, biographies, and news published in these journals. The results show that these journals covered 107 countries or regions on six continents. The average number of reference was 23.05, with 87.89% of the references from periodicals. The Price Index was 31.43% and the self-citing rate was 7.02%. The references in the first 20 journals ranked by the amount of citation accounted for 36.71% of the total citations. Brazil, United States, India, and England are more advanced in tropical medicine research. The conclusion is that these journals covered most research done in these countries or regions. Most researches were done by cooperation of the researchers, but many of the publications used outdated articles and should include newer information.     

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. This study explores the relationship between hyper-prolific authors and a journal’s editorial team, finding a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications.     

Reference bias in reports of drug trials.

Articles published before 1985 describing double blind trials of two or more non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis were examined to see whether there was any bias in the references they cited. Althogether 244 articles meeting the criteria were found through a Medline search and through examining the reference lists of the articles retrieved. The drugs compared in the studies were classified as new or as control drugs and the outcome of the trial as positive or not positive. The reference lists of all papers with references to other trials on the new drug were then examined for reference bias. Positive bias was judged to have occurred if the reference list contained a higher proportion of references with a positive outcome for that drug than among all the articles assumed to have been available to the authors (those published more than two years earlier than the index article). Altogether 133 of the 244 articles were excluded for various reasons--for example, 44 because of multiple publication and 19 because they had no references. Among the 111 articles analysed bias was not possible in the references of 35 (because all the references gave the same outcome); 10 had a neutral selection of references, 22 a negative selection, and 44 a positive selection--a significant positive bias. This bias was not caused by better scientific standing of the cited articles over the uncited ones. Thus retrieving literature by scanning reference lists may produce a biased sample of articles, and reference bias may also render the conclusions of an article less reliable.     

Impact analysis of a regional scientific journal (1980-2000): supporting promising local researchers pays the greatest dividends

During the past 28 years, the journal "Collegium Antropologicum" has continuously served as one of the main disseminators of anthropological scientific production in Central and Eastern Europe. The journal was committed to its role of a multidisciplinary platform for presenting wide range of research topics relevant to anthropology, from investigations within social and cultural anthropology and archaeology to those covering contemporary population genetics, human evolution and biomedical issues. Two key strategies aimed at sustaining and increasing the impact of this journal were oriented towards: (i) identification of promising local groups of researchers who were at disadvantage by many aspects (e.g. educational curricula, financial supports, language barriers etc.) when trying to publish their research internationally, and (ii) invitation and encouragement of already established international scientists to make contributions for "Collegium Antropologicum". From 1980-2000, 89 articles (or 6.3% of all published papers during that period) were cited 6 or more times, contributing disproportionately to journal's impact (nearly a third of all citations received). In an attempt to identify such papers more readily among the submissions to the journal in the future, we analyzed research topics and affiliations of the authors among the 89 papers receiving most citations in comparison to all papers published. Among the papers most frequently cited, we found greater-than-expected prevalence of Croatian researchers (especially when publishing in collaboration with international scientists) and studies of special populations. Several papers received more than 25 citations or had overall citation intensity greater than 2 per year. This implies that an interesting article from a local group of researchers can still resonate with international audience although published in a regional journal. Present analysis supports current editorial strategy that with a help of the international consulting editorial board continuously improves international recognition of this journal. The results imply that a balanced encouragement to promising local groups of researchers and to contributions of already established international scientists is a strategy superior to others in maintaining and increasing the impact of this regional journal.     

Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS

Background

Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We find that papers authored and “Contributed” by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are “Communicated” for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations.

Conclusion/Significance

Our findings suggest that PNAS “Contributed” papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy''s success.     

《应用生态学报》论文参考文献著录要求

为提高参考文献编排质量,有效配合期刊检索与评价, 推动国际学术交流,《应用生态学报》依据GB/T7714-2005对论文参考文献著录格式加以调整,自2008年始文献采用顺序编码制著录. 本文给出了具体实例, 并提出了作者在引用文献过程中应注意的问题.     

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.     

1997—2009年《生命科学研究》载文、作者、基金资助论文和影响因子统计分析

对<生命科学研究)1997-2009年的载文、作者、基金支持论文和影响因子情况进行了统计分析,得出该刊13年来发展的一些规律,为进一步提高该刊的学术水平和影响力提供依据.利用维普(VIP)资讯系统(中文科技期刊数据库),采用文献计量法,分析<生命科学研究>1997-2009年的载文量、作者合作度、合作率、以及地域分布、基金支持、影响因子等指标和内容.13年共检出886篇文献,作者3 544人次,合作度为4,合著率为94.92%.作者分布在全国29个省、自治区和直辖市,高等医药院校作者最多.占作者总数的84.76%.13年<生命科学研究>共发表各类基金资助论文734篇.影响因子和总被引频次逐年提升.该刊因其著者整体学术水平高,在生命科学研究领域有较大的影响.已成为我国生命科学研究领域具有普遍的指导意义、影响深远的重要学术性期刊和中文核心期刊.     

The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal

All the opinions in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed to reflect, in any way, those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Background

Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal.

Methods

Submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) between July 2004 and June 2005 were included. We abstracted JGIM peer review quality ratings, verified the publication status of all articles and calculated an impact factor for published articles (Rw) by dividing the 3-year citation rate by the average for this group of papers; an Rw>1 indicates a greater than average impact.

Results

Of 507 submissions, 128 (25%) were published in JGIM, 331 rejected (128 with review) and 48 were either not resubmitted after revision was requested or were withdrawn by the author. Of 331 rejections, 243 were published elsewhere. Articles published in JGIM had a higher citation rate than those published elsewhere (Rw: 1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.002). Reviewer quality ratings of article quality had good internal consistency and reviewer recommendations markedly influenced publication decisions. There was no quality rating cutpoint that accurately distinguished high from low impact articles. There was a stepwise increase in Rw for articles rejected without review, rejected after review or accepted by JGIM (Rw 0.60 vs. 0.87 vs. 1.56, p<0.0005). However, there was low agreement between reviewers for quality ratings and publication recommendations. The editorial publication decision accurately discriminated high and low impact articles in 68% of submissions. We found evidence of better accuracy with a greater number of reviewers.

Conclusions

The peer review process largely succeeds in selecting high impact articles and dispatching lower impact ones, but the process is far from perfect. While the inter-rater reliability between individual reviewers is low, the accuracy of sorting is improved with a greater number of reviewers.