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。     

El duro peregrinaje de las revistas biomédicas españolas hacia la excelencia: ¿quién nos ayuda? Calidad,impacto y méritos de la investigación

Biomedical journals must adhere to strict standards of editorial quality. In a globalized academic scenario, biomedical journals must compete firstly to publish the most relevant original research and secondly to obtain the broadest possible visibility and the widest dissemination of their scientific contents. The cornerstone of the scientific process is still the peer-review system but additional quality criteria should be met. Recently access to medical information has been revolutionized by electronic editions.Bibliometric databases such as MEDLINE, the ISI Web of Science and Scopus offer comprehensive online information on medical literature. Classically, the prestige of biomedical journals has been measured by their impact factor but, recently, other indicators such as SCImago SJR or the Eigenfactor are emerging as alternative indices of a journal's quality. Assessing the scholarly impact of research and the merits of individual scientists remains a major challenge. Allocation of authorship credit also remains controversial.Furthermore, in our Kafkaesque world, we prefer to count rather than read the articles we judge. Quantitative publication metrics (research output) and citations analyses (scientific influence) are key determinants of the scientific success of individual investigators. However, academia is embracing new objective indicators (such as the “h” index) to evaluate scholarly merit. The present review discusses some editorial issues affecting biomedical journals, currently available bibliometric databases, bibliometric indices of journal quality and, finally, indicators of research performance and scientific success.     

Impact of Histochemistry on Biomedical Research: Looking Through the Articles Published in a Long-established Histochemical Journal

Histochemistry provides the unique opportunity to detect single molecules in the very place where they exert their structural roles or functional activities: this makes it possible to correlate structural organization and function, and may be fruitfully exploited in countless biomedical research topics. Aiming to estimate the impact of histochemical articles in the biomedical field, the last few years citations of articles published in a long-established histochemical journal have been considered. This brief survey suggests that histochemical journals, especially the ones open to a large spectrum of research subjects, do represent an irreplaceable source of information not only for cell biologists, microscopists or anatomists, but also for biochemists, molecular biologists and biotechnologists.Key words: Basic and applied histochemistry, Biomedical research     

Representation of cancer in the medical literature--a bibliometric analysis

Background

There exists a lack of knowledge regarding the quantity and quality of scientific yield in relation to individual cancer types. We aimed to measure the proportion, quality and relevance of oncology-related articles, and to relate this output to their associated disease burden. By incorporating the impact factor(IF) and Eigenfactor™(EF) into our analysis we also assessed the relationship between these indices and the output under study.

Methods

All publications in 2007 were retrieved for the 26 most common cancers. The top 20 journals ranked by IF and EF in general medicine and oncology, and the presence of each malignancy within these titles was analysed. Journals publishing most prolifically on each cancer were identified and their impact assessed.

Principal Findings

63260 (PubMed) and 126845 (WoS) entries were generated, respectively. 26 neoplasms accounted for 25% of total output from the top medical publications. 5 cancers dominated the first quartile of output in the top oncology journals; breast, prostate, lung, and intestinal cancer, and leukaemia. Journals associated with these cancers were associated with much higher IFs and EFs than those journals associated with the other cancer types under study, although these measures were not equivalent across all sub-specialties. In addition, yield on each cancer was related to its disease burden as measured by its incidence and prevalence.

Conclusions

Oncology enjoys disproportionate representation in the more prestigious medical journals. 5 cancers dominate yield, although this attention is justified given their associated disease burden. The commonly used IF and the recently introduced EF do not correlate in the assessment of the preeminent oncology journals, nor at the level of individual malignancies; there is a need to delineate between proxy measures of quality and the relevance of output when assessing its merit. These results raise significant questions regarding the best method of assessment of research and scientific output in the field of oncology.     

Research Data in Core Journals in Biology,Chemistry, Mathematics,and Physics

This study takes a stratified random sample of articles published in 2014 from the top 10 journals in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics, as ranked by impact factor. Sampled articles were examined for their reporting of original data or reuse of prior data, and were coded for whether the data was publicly shared or otherwise made available to readers. Other characteristics such as the sharing of software code used for analysis and use of data citation and DOIs for data were examined. The study finds that data sharing practices are still relatively rare in these disciplines’ top journals, but that the disciplines have markedly different practices. Biology top journals share original data at the highest rate, and physics top journals share at the lowest rate. Overall, the study finds that within the top journals, only 13% of articles with original data published in 2014 make the data available to others.     

Elementary and middle level biology topics: a content analysis of Science and Children and Science Scope from 1990 to 2014

Science and Children and Science Scope are peer-reviewed science practitioner journals that publish articles for science educators who teach children of ages 5–10 years and 10–13 years, respectively. As such, these articles are a reflection of the science concepts that are being communicated to science educators. This comprehensive literature review was completed to determine the extent to which the articles included in these journals from 1990 to 2014 focused on biology topics, incorporated other non-science subjects and science disciplines, and encouraged inquiry-based learning. The results indicate that out of the 2701 total articles, 557 (21%) focused on biology. The biology topic covered most often by both journals was animals. The biology topics covered least often were fungi, photosynthesis, respiration and viruses. The findings are taken into consideration and the educational implications for the journals and educators are discussed.     

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.     

Surgical scientific publication and the 1991-1995 war in Croatia

The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical scientific publication in relation to the 1991-1995 war in Croatia, based on the articles indexed in Medline database that were published in 1980-2005 period. The number of articles was extracted from PubMed and analysed with trend analysis, which is preferred analytic approach over calculation of crude publication rates. The results indicate sporadic pre-war output, which was almost completely reduced by the onset of war. During wartime, a significant increasing trend in the number of published surgical articles that were related to warfare was detected (p = 0.003). During the post-war period a gradual shift towards surgical articles that were not related to warfare was detected, also marked by the significant increasing trend (p = 0.027). Both trends were significantly steeper than the overall Croatian biomedical output, suggesting that surgical scientific articles were being published more dynamically than in other biomedical areas in Croatia. The results suggest that war in Croatia has had a strong modifying effect on the surgical scientific output.     

More topics from the tropics: additional thoughts to Mammides et al.

Most studies on tropical conservation questions are conducted by researchers of developed countries from the north. This geographic disconnection was recently criticised by Mammides et al. Here, we reflect on their findings and add further views from scientist’s and journal editor’s perspectives. We argue that journals are, a priori, most strongly interested in research questions and approaches that will likely increase their scientific impact and prestige. This is rarely compatible with publishing articles on questions with restricted global impact or based on single taxa. We question whether small changes in the editorial policy of international conservation journals will considerably improve the geographic diversity in key conservation publications. Rather, thematic scopes of the leading conservation journals should be modified, preferably in close collaboration with leading conservationists from the south. We are convinced that long-term investments in the tropics will create a stronger local scientific community, thus bolstering academic morale, and finally may lead to an increase in the submission and acceptance rate of articles written from scientists from these regions.     

A bibliometric analysis of research papers published on photosynthesis: 1992–2009

We present here a bibliometric analysis of publications on photosynthesis research from 1992 to 2009 in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) Web of Science. This has allowed us to examine the growing trends and the key topics on this subject. We have assessed the document type, language of the publications, publication output, subject category, journal distribution, countries and territories of these publications, institutions involved, hot topics and highly cited papers. The top 30 countries/territories were ranked according to their total number of articles (TA), single country articles (SCA), internationally collaborative articles (ICA), first author articles (FAA) and corresponding author articles (CAA). Research directions on the subject of photosynthesis were also investigated and evaluated by statistically analyzing the distribution of author keywords in the database. Our analysis indicates that “water”, “stress”, “carbon dioxide”, “nitrogen” and “climate change” are hot topics of research on photosynthesis during this period.     

Why Most Biomedical Findings Echoed by Newspapers Turn Out to be False: The Case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Context

Because positive biomedical observations are more often published than those reporting no effect, initial observations are often refuted or attenuated by subsequent studies.

Objective

To determine whether newspapers preferentially report on initial findings and whether they also report on subsequent studies.

Methods

We focused on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Using Factiva and PubMed databases, we identified 47 scientific publications on ADHD published in the 1990s and soon echoed by 347 newspapers articles. We selected the ten most echoed publications and collected all their relevant subsequent studies until 2011. We checked whether findings reported in each “top 10” publication were consistent with previous and subsequent observations. We also compared the newspaper coverage of the “top 10” publications to that of their related scientific studies.

Results

Seven of the “top 10” publications were initial studies and the conclusions in six of them were either refuted or strongly attenuated subsequently. The seventh was not confirmed or refuted, but its main conclusion appears unlikely. Among the three “top 10” that were not initial studies, two were confirmed subsequently and the third was attenuated. The newspaper coverage of the “top 10” publications (223 articles) was much larger than that of the 67 related studies (57 articles). Moreover, only one of the latter newspaper articles reported that the corresponding “top 10” finding had been attenuated. The average impact factor of the scientific journals publishing studies echoed by newspapers (17.1 n = 56) was higher (p<0.0001) than that corresponding to related publications that were not echoed (6.4 n = 56).

Conclusion

Because newspapers preferentially echo initial ADHD findings appearing in prominent journals, they report on uncertain findings that are often refuted or attenuated by subsequent studies. If this media reporting bias generalizes to health sciences, it represents a major cause of distortion in health science communication.     

Gold open access: the best of both worlds

Gold open access provides free distribution of trustworthy scientific knowledge for everyone. As publication modus, it has to withstand the bad reputation of predatory journals and overcome the preconceptions of those who believe that open access is synonymous with poor quality articles and high costs. Gold open access has a bright future and will serve the scientific community, clinicians without academic affiliations and the general public.     

Evolving research trends in bioinformatics

The cross-disciplinary nature of bioinformatics entails co-evolution with other biomedical disciplines, whereby some bioinformatics applications become popular in certain disciplines and, in turn, these disciplines influence the focus of future bioinformatics development efforts. We observe here that the growth of computational approaches within various biomedical disciplines is not merely a reflection of a general extended usage of computers and the Internet, but due to the production of useful bioinformatics databases and methods for the rest of the biomedical scientific community. We have used the abstracts stored both in the MEDLINE database of biomedical literature and in NIH-funded project grants, to quantify two effects. First, we examine the biomedical literature as a whole and find that the use of computational methods has become increasingly prevalent across biomedical disciplines over the past three decades, while use of databases and the Internet have been rapidly increasing over the past decade. Second, we study the recent trends in the use of bioinformatics topics. We observe that molecular sequence databases are a widely adopted contribution in biomedicine from the field of bioinformatics, and that microarray analysis is one of the major new topics engaged by the bioinformatics community. Via this analysis, we were able to identify areas of rapid growth in the use of informatics to aid in curriculum planning, development of computational infrastructure and strategies for workforce education and funding.     

The joint cardiovascular research profile of the university medical centres in the Netherlands

Biomedical scientific research in the Netherlands has a good reputation worldwide. Quantitatively, the university medical centres (UMCs) deliver about 40?% of the total number of scientific publications of this research. Analysis of the bibliometric output data of the UMCs shows that their research is highly cited. These output-based analyses also indicate the high impact of cardiovascular scientific research in these centres, illustrating the strength of this research in the Netherlands. A set of six joint national cardiovascular research topics selected by the UMCs can be recognised. At the top are heart failure, rhythm disorder research and atherosclerosis. National collaboration of top scientists in consortia in these three areas is successful in acquiring funding of large-scale programs. Our observations suggest that funding national consortia of experts focused on a few selected research topics may increase the international competitiveness of cardiovascular research in the Netherlands.     

On the future contents of a small journal of histochemistry

In the last three years, more than 70,000 scientific articles have been published in peer reviewed journals on the application of histochemistry in the biomedical field: most of them did not appear in strictly histochemical journals, but in others dealing with cell and molecular biology, medicine or biotechnology. This proves that histochemistry is still an active and innovative discipline with relevance in basic and applied biological research, but also demonstrates that especially the small histochemical journals should likely reconsider their scopes and strategies to preserve their authorship. A review of the last three years volumes of the European Journal of Histochemistry, taken as an example of a long-time established small journal, confirmed that the published articles were widely heterogeneous in their topics and experimental models, as in this journal''s tradition. This strongly suggests that a journal of histochemistry should keep its role as a forum open to an audience as broad as possible, publishing papers on cell and tissue biology in a wide variety of models. This will improve knowledge of the basic mechanisms of development and differentiation, while helping to increase the number of potential authors since scientists who generally do not use histochemistry in their research will find hints for the applications of histochemical techniques to novel still unexplored subjects.Key words: Basic and applied histochemistry     

Considerations for conducting research in agricultural biotechnology

Science has shown its increased vulnerability because of two recent high-profile articles published in major journals on corn produced through biotechnology: a laboratory report suggesting profound consequences to monarch butterfly populations due to Bt corn pollen and a report suggesting transgenic introgression into Mexican maize. While both studies have been widely regarded as having flawed methodology, publishing these studies has created great consternation in the scientific community, regulatory agencies and the general public. There are roles and responsibilities of scientists, scientific journals, the public media, public agencies, and those who oppose or advocate a specific technology, and serious consequences when those roles and responsibilities go awry. Modern communication may exacerbate the flow of misinformation and easily lead to a decline in public confidence about biotechnology and science. However, common sense tells us that scientific inquiry and the publication and reporting of results should be performed with high standards of ethical behavior, regardless of one's personal perspective on agricultural biotechnology.     

Temporal trends in the impact factor of European versus USA biomedical journals

Background

The impact factors of biomedical journals tend to rise over time. We sought to assess the trend in the impact factor, during the past decade, of journals published on behalf of United States (US) and European scientific societies, in four select biomedical subject categories (Biology, Cell Biology, Critical Care Medicine, and Infectious Diseases).

Methods

We identified all journals included in the above-mentioned subject categories of Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® for the years 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008. We selected those that were published on behalf of US or European scientific societies, as documented in journal websites.

Results

We included 167 journals (35 in the subject category of Biology, 79 in Cell Biology, 27 in Critical Care Medicine, and 26 in Infectious Diseases). Between 1999 and 2008, the percentage increase in the impact factor of the European journals was higher than for the US journals (73.7±110.0% compared with 39.7±70.0%, p = 0.049). Regarding specific subject categories, the percentage change in the factor of the European journals tended to be higher than the respective US journals for Cell Biology (61.7% versus 16.3%), Critical Care Medicine (212.4% versus 65.4%), Infectious Diseases (88.3% versus 48.7%), whereas the opposite was observed for journals in Biology (41.0% versus 62.5%).

Conclusion

Journals published on behalf of European scientific societies, in select biomedical fields, may tend to close the “gap” in impact factor compared with those of US societies.

What''s Already Known About This Topic?

The impact factors of biomedical journals tend to rise through years. The leading positions in productivity in biomedical research are held by developed countries, including those from North America and Western Europe.

What Does This Article Add?

The journals from European biomedical scientific societies tended, over the past decade, to increase their impact factor more than the respective US journals.     

Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences

1. Increasingly viewed to have societal impact and value, science is affected by complex changes such as globalisation and the increasing dominance of commercial interest. As a result, technical advancements, financial concerns, institutional prestige and journal proliferation have created challenges for ecological and other scientific journals and affected the perception of both researchers and the public about the science that they publish. 2. Journals are now used for more than dissemination of scientific research. Institutions use journal rankings for a variety of purposes and often require a pre‐established number of articles in hiring and budgetary decisions. Consequently, journal impact factors have achieved greater importance, and the splitting of articles into smaller parcels of information (‘salami‐slicing’) to increase numbers of publications has become more frequent. 3. Journals may prescribe upper limits to article length, even though the average length of articles for several ecological journals examined has increased over time. There are clear signs, however, that journals without length limits for articles will become rarer. In contrast to ecological journals, taxonomic journals are not following this trend. 4. Two case histories demonstrate how splitting longer ecological articles into a series of shorter ones results in both redundancy of information and actually increases the journal space used overall. Furthermore, with current rejection rates of ecological journals (often ～80%), many thin salami‐sliced articles jam the peer‐review system much longer (through resubmission after rejection) than unsliced articles previously did (e.g. when rejection rates were ～50%). In our experience, the increased pressure to publish many articles in ‘high‐impact’ journals also may decrease the attractiveness of a future scientific career in ecology to young people. 5. ‘Gatekeeping’ of journal quality has shifted from editors to reviewers, and several recent trends are apparent including: bias about appropriate statistical methods; reviewers being more rigid overall; non‐native English writers being criticised for poor communications skills; and favourable reviews being signed more often than unfavourable ones. In terms of production, outsourcing of copy editing has increased the final error rate of published material. 6. We supplemented our perceptions with those of older colleagues (～100 experienced ecologists) that responded to an informal survey on this topic (response rate: 81%). In the opinion of almost 90% of our respondents, the overall review process has changed and for 20% among them the professional quality of reviews has declined. 7. We, and many older colleagues, are convinced there have been some negative changes in the scientific publication process. If younger colleagues share this concern, we can collectively counter this deteriorating situation, because we are the key to the publishing and evaluation process.     

On the Compliance of Women Engineers with a Gendered Scientific System

There has been considerable effort in the last decade to increase the participation of women in engineering through various policies. However, there has been little empirical research on gender disparities in engineering which help underpin the effective preparation, co-ordination, and implementation of the science and technology (S&T) policies. This article aims to present a comprehensive gendered analysis of engineering publications across different specialties and provide a cross-gender analysis of research output and scientific impact of engineering researchers in academic, governmental, and industrial sectors. For this purpose, 679,338 engineering articles published from 2008 to 2013 are extracted from the Web of Science database and 974,837 authorships are analyzed. The structures of co-authorship collaboration networks in different engineering disciplines are examined, highlighting the role of female scientists in the diffusion of knowledge. The findings reveal that men dominate 80% of all the scientific production in engineering. Women engineers publish their papers in journals with higher Impact Factors than their male peers, but their work receives lower recognition (fewer citations) from the scientific community. Engineers—regardless of their gender—contribute to the reproduction of the male-dominated scientific structures through forming and repeating their collaborations predominantly with men. The results of this study call for integration of data driven gender-related policies in existing S&T discourse.