bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2025–11–23
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Limitations of Academic Bibliometric Indices: The Need for More Comprehensive Metrics.
  2. Trends in female authorship of spine literature from 2002 to 2022.
  3. Global research landscapes in orthopaedic and traumatology systematic reviews: A bibliometric analysis of trends, impact, and evolution.
  4. Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study.
  5. Examining key factors on the road to leadership positions among pediatric ophthalmology faculty.
  6. Factors Associated with Gender Disparity on Editorial Boards of Anesthesiology Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.
  7. Analysis of Retracted Publications on Artificial Intelligence: Trends, Ethical Concerns, and Scientific Integrity.
  8. Two Decades of Medical Education Scholarship: Mapping Collaboration and Thematic Shifts Using Web of Science (2000-2019).
  9. Evaluating Academic Productivity of Hematology/Oncology Fellows.
  10. Indirect costs and scientific impact at NIMH.
  11. Assessing the success of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons research awards.
  12. SemNovel - A new approach to detecting semantic novelty of biomedical publications using embeddings of large language models.
  13. Predictors of citation rates and the problem of citation bias - a scoping review.
  14. Sanofi-Cell Research outstanding paper award of 2024.
  15. AI in healthcare: mapping Romania's transition from research to intellectual property & industry solutions.
  16. [Retractions in biomedical research (2000-present): current status].
  17. Sentiment analysis of research attention: the Altmetric proof of concept.
  18. Women seem to retract fewer papers than men - but why?
  19. Time to publish responsibly: DAFNEE, a database of academia-friendly journals in ecology and evolutionary biology.
  20. To be a professor: Academic mobility and publishing performance.
  21. Discoverability of African Journals by Google Scholar and Inclusion in Scopus.
  22. Funding Trends and Gender Disparities in Tanzanian Biomedical Research: Insights From Global Health Funding Databases.
  23. Gaining insights into a funding portfolio through publication tracking.
  24. Editorial stances on large Language models in leading nursing publications: a cross-sectional analysis.
  25. Fractional stochastic model of citation dynamics with memory and volatility.
  26. Assessing the impact of Japanese team grants in plant science.
  27. From abstract to article: publication rates of abstracts presented at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America spring conference 2018 and 2021.
  28. Who wins? Professional identity and the American Association for the History of Medicine's early career scholar awards.
  1. Ann Plast Surg. 2025 Dec 01. 95(6): 603-606
    Limitations of Academic Bibliometric Indices: The Need for More Comprehensive Metrics.
    Noah Alter, Muhammad Daiem, Matthew E Pontell, Izabela Galdyn, Michael Golinko, Galen Perdikis, William Lineaweaver.
       ABSTRACT: Bibliometric indices have long served as the foundation for assessing academic productivity and scholarly impact, influencing hiring decisions, tenure evaluations, grant allocations, and institutional rankings. However, traditional metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor and h-index exhibit fundamental limitations that fail to capture the complexity of academic contributions. These indices often prioritize citation counts, fail to account for variations in authorship contributions, and reinforce systemic disadvantages for early-career researchers. In response to these shortcomings, several alternative indices, including the m-quotient, g-index, Eigenfactor Score, and the Departmental Scholarly Index, have been proposed to refine research assessment. While these metrics introduce improvements, they remain constrained by a citation-based framework that disproportionately emphasizes publication volume over qualitative impact. A more comprehensive bibliometric model is needed-one that incorporates authorship position, field-normalized adjustments, and differentiates between research quality and sheer output.
    Keywords:  Eigenfactor Score; G-index; H-index; Journal Impact Factor; M-quotient; bibliometrics; departmental scholarly index; hiring; tenure
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004484
  2. Eur Spine J. 2025 Nov 19.
    Trends in female authorship of spine literature from 2002 to 2022.
    Dominique Rinfret, Sarah Wegman, Haseeb E Goheer, Mina Botros, Gabriel Ramirez, Ram Haddas, Ashley Rogerson, Varun Puvanesarajah.
       PURPOSE: To characterize the change in first and senior female authors from 2002 to 2022 in prominent spine journals and assess the role of female senior authorship on authorship.
    METHODS: PubMed was queried to identify articles in journals predominantly focused on spine surgery. Articles published between January 2000 to December 2022 from the top fifteen spine journals were queried. Articles involving in vitro data, animal studies, or a primary language other than English were excluded (n = 39,117). Gender API was then used to determine the gender of the first and last author of each article along with its % certainty. Names with below 90% certainty were excluded (n = 4100). Mixed-effects logistic regression model, with journal-level random effects, was estimated to investigate the association between first and senior author genders adjusted.
    RESULTS: Overall, 15,415 pairs of names (n = 30,830) were gendered by Gender API with over 90% certainty. Of the 1,697 publications with female senior authors, 18.4% were female first authors. Comparatively, of the 13,718 publications with male senior authors, 10.4% were female first authors. Female first authorship and senior authorship rates both significantly increased between 2000 and 2022, by 6.33% and 3.26% respectively. The increase in the adjusted proportion of female first authors with a female senior author was 1.60% greater than the corresponding increase for female first authors with a male senior author.
    CONCLUSIONS: First and senior female authorship rates have increased significantly from 2000 to 2022 in prominent spine journals. Further research into the role of training background, level of training, and productivity would characterize possible barriers and opportunities toward gender equity in female spine surgery publication rates.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Bibliometric; Gender; Leadership; Spine surgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09578-2
  3. J Orthop. 2026 Jan;71 241-251
    Global research landscapes in orthopaedic and traumatology systematic reviews: A bibliometric analysis of trends, impact, and evolution.
    Ariana Diaz-Gabriel, Dafne Quispe-Gutarra, Alvaro M Ñaña-Cordova, Fabriccio J Visconti-Lopez.
       Objective: This study aims to explore global research trends, productivity, and thematic evolution in systematic reviews within orthopaedics and traumatology.
    Methods: Articles indexed in the "Orthopaedics" category of the Web of Science Core Collection were retrieved using the keyword "Review*" and filtered for systematic reviews. Data were processed with Bibliometrix (R) and VOSviewer to assess publication trends, citation impact, prolific authors, leading journals, collaborative networks, and keyword co-occurrence patterns.
    Results: A total of 3445 articles were identified in 38 journals. The highest number of publications occurred in 2023 (452 articles), with an annual growth rate of 29.2 % and an average of 20.77 citations per article. Nicola Maffulli was the most prolific author, with 48 publications and 32,733 citations in Web of Science. The United States was the most productive country (852 articles), and Sichuan University was the leading institution (123 articles). The most productive journal was the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research (414 articles). In contrast, Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery had the greatest citation impact with 12,702 citations. The most cited study was "Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions" by Oryan et al. (2014), with 792 citations. Keywords evolved from "replacement" and "arthroplasty" (2018-2019) to terms like "outcomes", "risk", and "efficacy" (2020 onward), reflecting a shift from surgical techniques to patient-centered outcomes.
    Conclusions: Systematic reviews in orthopaedics and traumatology have grown substantially, reflecting increasing emphasis on evidence-based practice. Research has shifted from technical innovations toward comprehensive approaches prioritizing regenerative therapies, complication management, quality of life, and clinical sustainability. Leading countries, institutions, and journals have played pivotal roles in shaping these trends, though regional disparities highlight the need for greater inclusion of underrepresented areas.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Evidence-based practice; Orthopedics; Systematic review; Traumatology; Trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2025.08.061
  4. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(11): e0335059
    Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study.
    Paul Sebo.
       BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in scientific authorship are well documented, yet little is known about gender representation among authors of retracted publications.
    METHODS: We analyzed 878 retracted publications from 131 high-impact medical journals across nine clinical disciplines (anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology). Gender was inferred using Gender API for all, first, and last authors. Two analytic samples were constructed based on prediction confidence thresholds (≥60% and ≥70%). We examined gender distribution across authorship positions, number of retractions per author, and disciplinary representation. Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-squared tests were used to assess group differences. Gender proportions were compared with publication benchmarks from 2008-2017, restricting retraction data to the same period for comparability.
    RESULTS: Among 4,136 authors, 3,909 had full first names, and gender could be assigned to 3,865 (98.9%). In the sample with prediction confidence ≥60% (n = 3,743), 863 (23.1%) were identified as women. They accounted for 16.5% (123/747) of first and 12.7% (87/687) of last authors. They had significantly fewer retractions per author and were less likely to have >5 retractions (all authors: 3 women [8.1%] vs 34 men [91.9%], p < 0.001). Across most disciplines, their representation was below publication benchmarks. Dermatology (retractions = 80.0%, publications = 48.9-51.8%) and radiology (retractions = 40.0%, publications = 31.0-36.8%) were exceptions among first authors, while pediatrics (retractions = 50.0%, publications = 37.0%-42.6%) was an exception among last authors, though all based on small numbers.
    CONCLUSIONS: Women are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions. Further research is needed to clarify underlying mechanisms.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335059
  5. J AAPOS. 2025 Nov 18. pii: S1091-8531(25)00587-7. [Epub ahead of print] 104689
    Examining key factors on the road to leadership positions among pediatric ophthalmology faculty.
    Josephine Rudd Zhong Manis, Brenton T Bicknell, Haley Chishom, Yejin Heo, Lance Dzubinski, Alvina Liang, Taylor Aaserud, Shayan Massoumi, Thanushri Srithanka, Robert Tauscher, Steven E Brooks.
       PURPOSE: To identify key factors associated with attaining leadership positions among US academic pediatric ophthalmologists, with a focus on gender, fellowship training, years of practice, research productivity, and variables related to their academic institutions.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study reviewed publicly available data accessed through institutional websites. Faculty-specific variables included gender, years since residency graduation, academic rank, leadership roles, and research productivity (eg, H-index, number of publications). Institutional variables included public/private designation and location within US census regions. Research metrics were derived from Scopus. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's χ2, the Fischer exact test, and the t test were used for statistical analysis, with significance at P < 0.05.
    RESULTS: Of 125 US-based ophthalmology programs, 517 pediatric ophthalmology faculty were characterized. Women comprised 54.6% of faculty. Academic rank and H-index were strongly associated with leadership positions (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, resp.) in multivariable analysis, whereas years since fellowship completion, gender, number of fellowships, and advanced degrees were not. Women full professors had fewer years since fellowship than men (24 vs 36 years [P < 0.001]). Female leadership distribution mirrored faculty averages by region.
    CONCLUSIONS: Academic rank and research productivity by H-Index are critical factors for achieving leadership roles for academic pediatric ophthalmologists, whereas years since fellowship graduation was not. Underrepresentation of women in full professor and senior leadership roles may reflect a lag in promotions corresponding to the increasing presence of women in pediatric ophthalmology in recent decades.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2025.104689
  6. J Clin Pract Res. 2024 Nov;46(6): 601-611
    Factors Associated with Gender Disparity on Editorial Boards of Anesthesiology Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.
    Mehmet Nuri Yakar, Duygu Bilge, Nurgazy Shermatov, Merve Oltulu, Volkan Hancı.
       Objective: The number of women in academic medicine has increased over recent decades. However, the representation of women in anesthesiology is a subject of ongoing discussion.
    Materials and Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study aims to determine gender balance on editorial boards (EBs) of anesthesiology journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded in the Web of Science. The gender of EB members and their titles were determined based on data obtained from the journal websites between March 10 and 25, 2024. Geographical characteristics of journals and publishers, journal metrics (including the 2022 impact factor, five-year impact factor, H-index, and publication count), journal quartiles, and categories were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, Fisher's exact tests, and Spearman's correlation coefficient. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent factors.
    Results: Women comprised 24.4% of EB members and 5.0% in the role of editor-in-chief. The category of neurosciences (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.29; p=0.006) and employment as an associate editor (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.92; p=0.011) were independently associated with gender parity. Conversely, the role of editor-in-chief as a leadership position (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.71; p=0.015) and Japan as the publisher's country (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59; p=0.009) were independently associated with gender disparity on EBs of anesthesiology journals.
    Conclusion: To reduce gender disparity on the EBs of anesthesiology journals, further action is required. It is recommended that authorities in anesthesiology refine current policies through the implementation of objective measures.
    Keywords:  Anesthesiology; diversity; editorial policy; gender; gender disparities; parity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14744/cpr.2024.85820
  7. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Nov 17. 40(44): e280
    Analysis of Retracted Publications on Artificial Intelligence: Trends, Ethical Concerns, and Scientific Integrity.
    Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Ramazan Azim Okyay, Birzhan Seiil, Ainur B Qumar, Hilmi Erdem Sumbul.
       BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has promoted progress across various fields. The number of papers regarding AI has risen in recent years. This study examines retracted publications regarding AI by analyzing trends, journals, and reasons.
    METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study thoroughly investigated retracted AI-related papers listed in PubMed. The data extraction comprised bibliographic data, reasons for retraction, citation metrics, journal indexing status, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs). Retraction notices were classified according to particular reasons. Descriptive statistics were employed to evaluate retraction trends, geographic distribution, and citation impact.
    RESULTS: A total of 764 retracted AI-related papers were examined, with the most retractions occurring in 2023 (n = 667). China had the highest number (n = 551), followed by India (n = 40) and Bangladesh (n = 23). Journals focusing on mathematical and computational biology, neurosciences, and healthcare sciences had the most retractions. The most common retraction reasons were peer review issues (n = 716) and data concerns (n = 714), followed by irrelevant citations (n = 571) and unethical AI use (n = 238). The median time to retraction was 510 days (18-4,200). The median citation and AAS scores were (0-167) and 0 (0-191).
    CONCLUSION: The high number of retractions from China highlights the need for higher research standards. Deficits in peer review and data issues emerged as the main reasons for retraction, underscoring persistent challenges in maintaining research integrity and quality assurance. For scientific literature integrity, academic institutions, publishers, and researchers should stress transparency, ethics, and rigorous post-publication inspection.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Deep Learning; Machine Learning; Retraction Notice; Retraction of Publication; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e280
  8. Perspect Med Educ. 2025 ;14(1): 750-760
    Two Decades of Medical Education Scholarship: Mapping Collaboration and Thematic Shifts Using Web of Science (2000-2019).
    Anton Boudreau Ninkov, Constance Poitras, Jason R Frank, Joseph Costello, Lauren A Maggio, Anthony R Artino.
       Introduction: The field of medical education (ME) has grown substantially over the past decades, yet questions remain about its scope and boundaries. This study examines how research topics and institutional collaborations have evolved in ME from 2000 to 2019.
    Methods: Adopting a post-positivist stance and using bibliometric network analyses, we examined metadata from 31,338 publications across 22 core ME journals indexed in the Web of Science. We analyzed trends in institutional collaboration and the development of research themes. Extracted metadata included authors' institutional affiliations and KeyWords Plus (n = 18,218). Bibliometric analyses were conducted using VOSviewer, a widely used tool for network mapping. We generated co-authorship networks to trace institutional collaboration and co-word networks to identify thematic clusters.
    Results: Co-authorship networks revealed increasing collaboration, with U.S. institutions remaining central and Canadian and Dutch institutions gaining prominence. Co-word analyses identified three stable clusters-teaching and learning, quantitative, and psychosocial-with teaching and learning dominant across all periods and the quantitative cluster expanding in recent years.
    Discussion: Findings show the consolidation of teaching and learning as the foundation of ME, alongside diversification through quantitative and psychosocial themes. Growing collaborations suggest the field's maturation, though geographic imbalances persist. Limitations include reliance on a restricted set of Web of Science journals, which overrepresent English-language and highly cited publications, and the use of KeyWords Plus as a proxy for themes. This study offers an evidence-based mapping of ME's evolution and provides a framework for future research on the interdisciplinary and global dynamics of the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1853
  9. J Cancer Educ. 2025 Nov 21.
    Evaluating Academic Productivity of Hematology/Oncology Fellows.
    Kevin Yang, Umut Akova, Allison Shih, Mukund Pasupuleti, Rithvik Katikaneni, Meng-Hsin Chen, Carlos Castro, Zoe Haley-Johnson, Austin Huang.
      Many hematology/oncology fellows who train at Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) seek academic careers. However, it is difficult to assess the impact of research conducted during fellowship, as it takes about three years for citation counts to stabilize. Altmetric Score (AS) is an alternative metric with an expedited time to maturity that quantifies article impact via online mentions. We aim to evaluate the academic productivity of these fellows using both traditional and alternative metrics. We compiled a list of heme/onc fellows who graduated In 2025 from each program website. We then performed a PubMed search for articles published by each fellow during their fellowship training. We acquired AS from the Altmetric API database. 545 fellows from 125 US-based programs published a total of 1430 papers (3.39 vs 1.71, p<0.001), with 483 as first author (1.25 vs 0.45, p<0.001), that accrued 7351 citations (19.75 vs 6.04, p<0.001) and an AS of 20614 (58.03 vs 13.80, p<0.001), with an average citation count of 2.74 (3.45 vs 1.89, p=0.002) and average AS of 6.70 (8.89 vs 4.10, p<0.001) for CCC-trained fellows compared to non-CCC-trained fellows. There was no significant difference in effect size between average citation count and average AS (95% confidence interval 0.631-0.951 vs 0.635-0.955). Fellows who trained at CCCs published significantly more total papers, first author papers, and accrued greater total and average citation counts and AS than those who did not. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the novel, yet more practical, metric of AS and the widely-used citation count in this cohort. Future work can explore the potential for real-world use of AS as a quantifiable measure in academic hiring processes.
    Keywords:  Altmetrics; Bibliometrics; Hematology/Oncology; Medical Education
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02769-x
  10. PNAS Nexus. 2025 Nov;4(11): pgaf357
    Indirect costs and scientific impact at NIMH.
    Roy H Perlis.
      The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards additional funds for extramural research to support research infrastructure and administration, such that the total cost of a given research project depends on where it is conducted. We sought to understand whether greater indirect rates were associated with a greater scientific impact of NIH-funded work. The NIH RePORTER database was queried to retrieve all R01, R21, or R03-funded research proposals for which National Institute of Mental Health was listed as the primary funding source for proposals funded between 2012 and 2023. We applied multivariable regression to examine the association between indirect rate and measures of scientific impact, including number of publications, their citation impact in terms of H-index per grant and total citations, and the number of patents associated with each grant. Of 5,143 projects, reflecting $9.85 billion, mean indirect rate was 47.9% (SD 16.2%). Greater indirect rate was associated with modest but statistically significantly greater number of publications (+0.30 per 10% increase in indirect rate, 95% CI 0.08-0.51); H-index at 5 years (+0.25 per 10% increase in indirect rate, 95% CI 0.18-0.33; Fig. 1); and total citations (+29.71 per 10% increase in indirect rate, 95% CI 17.86-41.57). Each 10% increase in indirect rate was associated with a 20% increase in odds of patent filing (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.37). The results suggest modest but statistically significantly greater benefits from conduct of research at institutions with higher indirect costs and provide data for policymakers to consider in weighing the costs against potential benefits of work at such institutions.
    Keywords:  H-index; US government; funding; grant; policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf357
  11. Surgery. 2025 Nov 15. pii: S0039-6060(25)00729-9. [Epub ahead of print]190 109877
    Assessing the success of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons research awards.
    Q Lina Hu-Bianco, Lauren N Krumeich, Sumedh Kaul, Priya H Dedhia, Benjamin C James.
       BACKGROUND: The American Association of Endocrine Surgeons supports early research and career development of junior members through 2 research awards each year. This study aimed to determine the impact of American Association of Endocrine Surgeons funding on academic productivity.
    METHODS: Measures of academic productivity of award applicants (2016-2022), including peer-reviewed publications, Hirsch index (h-index), and National Institutes of Health funding, was obtained from PubMed and SCOPUS databases and compared between award recipients and nonrecipients. In addition, a survey was sent to all award recipients since inception (2010-2022) to assess self-reported ability to complete project aims, publish manuscripts, and obtain subsequent funding.
    RESULTS: Award recipients (n = 26) had a higher post-award h-index (median 20 [interquartile range 16, 26] vs 15 [interquartile range 10, 20] P < .01) and almost twice as often obtained National Institutes of Health funding (21% vs 12%) compared with nonrecipients (n = 51). By self-report, every respondent (n = 22) indicated that they achieved at least some of their proposed aims, and 63.6% had published or were in the process of publishing their results. Most respondents (15, 68.2%) stated that their research would not have been feasible without the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons award, and 13 (59.1%) stated that their award led to subsequent grant funding, totaling $13.7 million, including $10.3 million of federal grant funding.
    CONCLUSION: Recipients of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons research awards boast high rates of achieving project aims, publishing findings, and obtaining additional grant funding. The return on investment is already greater than 3,000% and is expected to continue to grow as these scientists pursue their research goals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2025.109877
  12. J Biomed Inform. 2025 Nov 14. pii: S1532-0464(25)00181-9. [Epub ahead of print] 104952
    SemNovel - A new approach to detecting semantic novelty of biomedical publications using embeddings of large language models.
    Xueqing Peng, Yutong Xie, Huan He, Brian Ondov, Kalpana Raja, Qijia Liu, Qiaozhu Mei, Hua Xu.
       OBJECTIVE: The rapid growth of scientific literature necessitates robust methods to identify novel contributions. However, there is currently no widely-recognized measurement of novelty in biomedical research. Existing approaches typically quantify novelty using isolated article features, such as keywords, MeSH terms, or references, potentially losing important context and nuance from the semantic content of the text.
    METHODS: We propose SemNovel, a semantic novelty detection framework that leverages embeddings from Large Language Models (LLMs) to capture richer semantic content. Specifically, we adopt LLM-embedder (BAAI/llm-embedder) for semantic universe construction, a unified embedding model that integrates Llama2-7B-Chat as its foundation and BGE base as the embedding backbone. We employ t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) for 2D visualization and project the entire PubMed library into a "semantic universe". A SemNovel score is calculated for each article based on its distance from prior publications. We validated SemNovel's effectiveness through its correlation with future research impact and its ability to distinguish groundbreaking studies. We further explored its potential for analyzing trends in research trajectories and interdisciplinary collaboration. To enhance usability, we developed an interactive interface for users to analyze SemNovel scores.
    RESULTS: The SemNovel score exhibited a positive correlation with future research impact, as measured by citation counts (ρ = 0.1782, p < 0.001, Spearman rank correlation), independent of factors such as journal impact factors (JIFs), publication years, and author counts, and outperformed previous semantic novelty indicators. It effectively identified highly novel papers, including Nobel Prize-winning studies (p < 0.001, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). SemNovel also revealed trends in the evolution of scientific research, exemplified in the PD-1/PD-L1 field, and underscored the role of interdisciplinary collaboration in enhancing biomedical research novelty.
    CONCLUSION: SemNovel represents a scalable and robust method for quantifying semantic novelty in biomedical literature. It provides a powerful tool for uncovering groundbreaking research, tracking scientific progress, and analyzing trends in innovation.
    Keywords:  Large language models; Literature mining; Novelty detection; Semantic space
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104952
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Nov 18. pii: S0895-4356(25)00390-7. [Epub ahead of print] 112057
    Predictors of citation rates and the problem of citation bias - a scoping review.
    Birgitte Nørgaard, Karen E Lie, Hans Lund.
       OBJECTIVE: To systematically map the factors associated with citation rates, to categorize the types of studies evaluating these factors and to obtain an overall status of citation bias in scientific health literature.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review was reported following the PRISMA scoping review extension checklist. Four electronic databases were searched, and the reference-lists of all included articles were screened. Empirical meta-research studies reporting any source of predictors of citation rates and/or citation bias within health care were included. Data are presented by descriptive statistics such as frequencies, portions, and percentages.
    RESULTS: A total of 165 studies were included. Fifty-four distinct factors of citation rates were evaluated in 786 quantitative analyses in included studies. Regardless using the same basic methodological approach to calculate citation rate, 78 studies (48%) aimed to examined citation bias, whereas 79 studies (48%) aimed to optimizing article characteristics to enhance authors' own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) analysed infrastructural characteristics at publication level to make all studies more accessible.
    CONCLUSION: Seventy-nine of the 165 included studies (48%) explicitly recommended modifying paper characteristics-such as title length or author count-to boost citations rather than prioritizing scientific contribution. Such recommendations may conflict with principles of scientific integrity, which emphasize relevance and methodological rigor over strategic citation practices. Given the high proportion of analyses identifying a significant increase in citation rates, publication bias cannot be ruled out.
    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Why was the study done? Within scientific research, it is important to cite previous research. This is done for specific reasons, including crediting earlier authors and providing a credible and trustworthy background for conducting the study. However, findings suggest that citations are not always chosen for their intended purpose. This is known as citation bias.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citation; Citation Rate; Citation bias; Evidence-Based Research; Predictors of citation rate; Research methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112057
  14. Cell Res. 2025 Nov 20.
    Sanofi-Cell Research outstanding paper award of 2024.
    Cell Research Editorial Team
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-025-01201-9
  15. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2025 Nov 20.
    AI in healthcare: mapping Romania's transition from research to intellectual property & industry solutions.
    Giovani M Goron, Razvan M Chereches.
       OBJECTIVES: Romania is aligning its healthcare AI ecosystem with the European Union's AI Act (2024/1689), through its own National AI Strategy. Despite a growing volume of research in medical AI, significant gaps remain in translating this output into patents and domestically developed high-risk medical devices. This study assesses Romania's research productivity, patenting activity, and commercial solutions in medical AI.
    METHODS: We conducted an analysis combining bibliometric data, patent information, and medical device databases, and analyzed 619 Romanian-authored articles on medical AI, 272 patent records, and identified domestic AI-powered software providers.
    RESULTS: Romania's publication output in medical AI has surged post-2018, primarily driven by academic institutions in Bucharest and Cluj. Patents are predominantly filed by multinationals, indicating a potential disconnect between research and industrial output. Six AI medical software solutions were identified, most under the low-risk classifications.
    CONCLUSIONS: While Romania is expanding its medical AI research, it faces barriers in converting academic output into innovation. The dominance of foreign corporations in patent filings, reliance on international funding for high-impact research, and the scarcity of domestically developed high-risk medical AI solutions highlight important gaps. Addressing these disparities is essential for national alignment in the AI medical innovation space.
    Keywords:  EU AI act; Romania; artificial intelligence; bibliometrics; medical AI
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2025-0219
  16. Med Sci (Paris). 2025 Oct;41(10): 770-774
    [Retractions in biomedical research (2000-present): current status].
    Jacques Haiech, Camille Noûs, Claude Forest.
      Since the early 2000s, retractions of articles in biomedical research have increased exponentially, revealing growing structural tensions within the global scientific system. This article offers a critical synthesis of retractions occurring between 2000 and 2025, based on bibliometric data and socio-institutional analyses. It highlights differentiated geographical dynamics, the institutionalization of fraud, increased editorial responsibility, and typical profiles of retracted authors- often male, hyper-productive, and poorly supervised. By distinguishing between honest error and misconduct, the analysis shows that the majority of retractions are linked to serious violations (fraud, plagiarism, manipulation). Although scientific self-correction mechanisms have been strengthened, they remain imperfect, particularly considering the continued citation of retracted articles. This study underscores the urgent need to rethink academic evaluation criteria, to strengthen a culture of scientific integrity, and to establish more rigorous editorial governance. Retractions, far from being mere anomalies, emerge as systemic indicators calling for a profound reform of scientific publishing practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2025162
  17. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1612216
    Sentiment analysis of research attention: the Altmetric proof of concept.
    Carlos Areia, Michael Taylor, Miguel Garcia, Jonathan Hernandez.
      Traditional bibliometric approaches to research impact assessment have predominantly relied on citation counts, overlooking the qualitative dimensions of how research is received and discussed. Altmetrics have expanded this perspective by capturing mentions across diverse platforms, yet most analyses remain limited to quantitative measures, failing to account for sentiment. This study aimed to introduce a novel artificial intelligence-driven sentiment analysis framework designed to evaluate the tone and intent behind research mentions on social media, with a primary focus on X (formerly Twitter). Our approach leverages a bespoke sentiment classification system, spanning seven levels from strong negative to strong positive, to capture the nuanced ways in which research is endorsed, critiqued, or debated. Using a machine learning model trained on 5,732 manually curated labels (ML2024) as a baseline (F1 score = 0.419), we developed and refined a Large Language Model (LLM)-based classification system through three iterative rounds of expert evaluation. The final AI-driven model demonstrated improved alignment with human assessments, achieving an F1 score of 0.577, significantly enhancing precision and recall over traditional methods. These findings underscore the potential of advanced AI methodologies in altmetric analysis, offering a richer, more context-aware understanding of research reception. This study laid the foundation for integrating sentiment analysis into Altmetric platforms, providing researchers, institutions, and policymakers with deeper insights into the societal discourse surrounding scientific outputs.
    Keywords:  AI; LLM; altmetrics; artificial intelligence; discourse; research attention; sentiment analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1612216
  18. Nature. 2025 Nov 19.
    Women seem to retract fewer papers than men - but why?
    Jenna Ahart.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Medical research; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03796-w
  19. J Evol Biol. 2025 Nov 17. pii: voaf143. [Epub ahead of print]
    Time to publish responsibly: DAFNEE, a database of academia-friendly journals in ecology and evolutionary biology.
    Nicolas Galtier, Khalid Belkhir, Pierre-Olivier Antoine, Christine Bibal, Christophe Boëte, Frédéric Delsuc, Elise Huchard, Sonia Kéfi, Charly Maeder, Laure Paradis, Sébastien J Puechmaille, Alain Queffelec, Céline Scornavacca, Carole M Smadja.
      The current economics of scientific publishing reveal a profound imbalance: academia pays prices far exceeding the actual costs of publication. Rather than supporting research, much of this expenditure sustains the profits of a few dominant commercial publishers. Transitioning to responsible publishing is a collective challenge that requires raising awareness among scientists about the problem and the solutions available. We present DAFNEE, a database of academia-friendly journals in ecology, evolutionary biology and archaeology (https://dafnee.isem-evolution.fr/). DAFNEE includes information on over 600 journals (co)run by academic or non-profit institutions, aiming at helping to keep publishing funds within the academic community. The database details these journal's business models, article processing charges, citation rates and partnerships. We show that DAFNEE journals compare favourably to non-DAFNEE ones in terms of editorial and financial policy, while offering similar citation rates. Finally, we offer several recommendations aimed at encouraging authors, reviewers, and evaluators to adopt more responsible publishing practices.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Diamond Open Access; Responsible publishing; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeb/voaf143
  20. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(11): e0336133
    To be a professor: Academic mobility and publishing performance.
    Martin Macháček, Aleš Melecký.
      Many aspiring academics target a professorship, but only some succeed. This study examines academic market concentration and its consequences in a post-communist country. We analyzed the field of economic sciences over a 22-year period, combining official data on the appointment process with manually collected data on applicants' publishing performance in the Czech Republic. Using correlation and linear regression analyses, we investigated whether the mobility of candidates for full professorships is related to their research productivity and research visibility. Our findings revealed low migration flows among both domestic and international institutions. This resulted in high rates of inbreeding and potentially negative consequences, including a greater focus on local journals and lower publication performance after appointment. On average, internal candidates produce more publications, but fewer of them are written in a foreign language. This renders them virtually non-existent to the international research community. After becoming professors, internal candidates are also more likely to reduce their publication performance. Implementing a national, performance-based research funding system has yielded favorable results, such as increased publication performance among candidates over time. These effects were significantly higher in the capital, driven by the top Czech university (Charles University). Despite significant policy reforms, Czech higher education still suffers from considerable path dependence. Government bodies should promote competition among higher education institutions through regulation and financing. We discuss several measures that would modify the existing competence promotion model and support the international competitiveness of the higher education sector.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336133
  21. Gates Open Res. 2025 ;9 103
    Discoverability of African Journals by Google Scholar and Inclusion in Scopus.
    Patrick Amboka, Julius Kirimi Sindi, Marylene Wamukoya, Nosa Orobaton, Alphonsus Neba, Marta Vicente-Crespo, Evelyn Gitau.
       Background: There has been steady progress and advancement of research in Africa. However, African researchers face numerous challenges among them, limited international recognition. This is due to the low discoverability and inclusion of their research outputs by indexers and databases. A lot of initiatives have attempted to address the challenge, however, there is a need for support to enhance the discoverability and inclusion of research outputs from Africa.
    Methods: We conducted a desk review of 1,116 journals hosted on the Sabinet journal repository and the African Journal Online (AJOL) platform. The factors that were considered to influence journals' discoverability and inclusion include (i) the journals' Open Access (OA) status, (ii) OA journals' listing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), (iii) the journals' presence on the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) portal, (iv) the membership of the journals' publishers on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), (v) the journals' hosting on International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (INASP) and (vi) geographic location of the journals' online publisher.
    Findings: A total of 1,116 journals were identified from the Sabinet and AJOL platforms. The highest proportion of journals was neither discovered by Google Scholar nor included in Scopus (63.2%). The study established one significant predictor of journal discoverability by Google Scholar and inclusion in Scopus. This was the journal listing on the ISSN portal which increased the odds of the journal being discoverable by Google Scholar and inclusion in Scopus by 2.033 and 5.451 respectively. Journals listed in the DOAJ but whose publishers were COPE members had significantly reduced odds of being discoverable by Google Scholar and being included in Scopus by 0.334 and 0.161 respectively. This suggests that the journal's discoverability and inclusion are more nuanced and not always straightforward hence quality markers need to be aligned.
    Keywords:  African Journals; Capacity strengthening; Journal indexing; Research evaluation; discoverability; international standards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.16372.1
  22. Cureus. 2025 Oct;17(10): e94912
    Funding Trends and Gender Disparities in Tanzanian Biomedical Research: Insights From Global Health Funding Databases.
    Raphael Z Sangeda, Siana Nkya, Upendo Masamu, Rehema C Mallya, Magdalena Lyimo, Bruno P Mmbando, Nahya Salim.
      Background Research funding is crucial for advancing scientific knowledge and innovation. Understanding patterns and trends in research funding, including potential gender disparities, can provide valuable insights for policymakers, funding agencies, and researchers. This study aimed to analyze the distribution of research funding in Tanzania, identify major contributors, uncover trends over the past years, and examine gender disparities among principal investigators (PIs). Methods Data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding database and World RePORT were utilized. Data cleaning and preprocessing ensured consistency and accuracy, with funding amounts converted to common currency (USD) for analysis. Statistical and trend analyses were performed to identify key patterns, focusing on funding distribution by research organization, funding organization, fiscal year, type of record, and PI gender. Results A total of $218,409,329 were distributed across 438 projects led by 324 unique PIs. Male PIs accounted for 228 (70.4%), females for 91 (28.1%), and five (1.5%) were of unspecified gender. Collaborative projects comprised 374 entries ($158,121,528.60), and direct funding accounted for 64 projects ($60,287,799.96). The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership contributed the most ($165,598,586; 75.8%), followed by the Wellcome Trust ($12,282,858; 5.6%) and the European Commission ($12,017,629; 5.5%). Funding rose steadily, peaking in 2020 and 2022 at over US $40 million. The National Institute for Medical Research received the highest total cost (US$95,453,357; 43.7%). Male PIs led more projects and received $49,038,802, compared to $22,475,127 for female PIs. In 2023, however, female PIs received more funding ($5,517,171) than male PIs ($4,354,089), reversing previous trends. Conclusions Research funding in Tanzania remains concentrated among a few institutions and is dominated by one major donor. Although overall funding has increased, significant gender disparities persist. The 2023 shift toward greater female PI funding is promising but requires sustained policy attention. These insights can inform equitable research and investment strategies for Tanzania.
    Keywords:  funding organizations; funding trends; gender disparities; national institutes of health (nih); research funding; research institutions; tanzania; world report
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.94912
  23. NIHR Open Res. 2025 ;5 62
    Gaining insights into a funding portfolio through publication tracking.
    Reetika Suri-Ogilvie, Sandra Hicks, Dominique Capostagno, Ashley Banks, Elena Ahmed, Kelly Makarona.
       Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is the UK's biggest funder for health and social care research, funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The NIHR infrastructure provides research expertise, specialist facilities, a research delivery workforce and support services, all of which help to support and deliver the research we fund, and research funded by others. The NIHR is committed to maximising the impact of the research we support and fund 1 and therefore, it is crucial for the organisation to understand the mechanisms for the movement of research between these different pieces of research infrastructure and pathways to impact on the health and wealth of the nation. The aim of this article is to share our approach to developing an understanding of pathways to impact, enablers and barriers and lessons learnt.
    Methods: We used publications reported to us by our infrastructure as receiving infrastructure support and forward and backward citation analysis to trace infrastructure support for REF 2021 impact case studies and research that has had an impact on policy. We used these data to develop impact case studies for NIHR infrastructure.
    Results: Of the 6,361 REF impact case studies that are publicly available, the NIHR infrastructure has supported 327 of which 59 are supported by more than one scheme. Through our forward and backward citation analysis we have also developed impact case studies in the following NIHR priority areas:Reducing health inequalitiesDigital healthArtificial intelligenceWorkforce resilience.
    Conclusions: The use of forward and backward citation analysis can also help research funders to understand how research is moving between different parts of their funding portfolios, pathways to impact and any gaps and opportunities. However, this comes with some challenges which need mitigation.
    Keywords:  Research Excellence Framework; case studies; citations; funding; portfolio; publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14022.2
  24. BMC Nurs. 2025 Nov 20. 24(1): 1419
    Editorial stances on large Language models in leading nursing publications: a cross-sectional analysis.
    Xing Zhou, Guidi Su, Limei Zhu, Yaoping Liu.
       BACKGROUND: The rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into scholarly publishing has created an urgent need for clear standards. This study aims to comprehensively analyze the editorial stances of leading nursing publications regarding the use of LLMs in manuscript preparation and peer assessment.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the top 50 nursing publications according to their journal impact factor. Each publication's website was systematically evaluated for directives concerning LLM use in authorship, content generation, image creation, and peer assessment. Journal metrics were also extracted to assess any correlation with policy adoption.
    RESULTS: Of the 50 publications, 35 (70%) had explicit LLM-related directives. A strong point of agreement permits the use of LLMs for content generation (97%) but prohibits LLM authorship (94%). However, a significant divergence was found regarding AI-generated images, with 52% of publications prohibiting their use. Guidance on LLM use in peer assessment was also inconsistent, with 49% of publications prohibiting it. Policy adoption varied significantly by publisher (ranging from 20% to 100%). No statistical association was found between policy existence and journal impact metrics (p > 0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: Leading nursing publications exhibit a fractured landscape on LLM use. While foundational agreement exists on authorship and content generation, critical areas like image creation and peer assessment lack consistent standards. This ambiguity underscores the need for a more unified, transparent framework to guide ethical and responsible LLM integration in nursing scholarship.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Editorial policies; Large language models; Nursing journals; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-04102-9
  25. Phys Rev E. 2025 Oct;112(4-1): 044304
    Fractional stochastic model of citation dynamics with memory and volatility.
    Keisuke Okamura.
      Understanding the statistical laws governing citation dynamics remains a fundamental challenge in network theory and the science of science. Citation networks typically exhibit in-degree distributions well approximated by log-normal distributions, yet also display power-law behavior in the high-citation regime-an apparent contradiction lacking a unified explanation. Here we identify a previously unrecognized phenomenon: The variance of the logarithm of citation counts per unit time follows a power law with respect to time (t) since publication, scaling as t^{H}, with H constant. This discovery introduces a new challenge while simultaneously offering a crucial clue to resolving this discrepancy. We develop a stochastic model in which latent attention to publications evolves through a memory-driven process with cumulative advantage, modeled as fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter H and volatility. We show that antipersistent fluctuations in attention (H<1/2) yield log-normal citation distributions, whereas persistent attention dynamics (H>1/2) favor heavy-tailed power laws, thus resolving the log-normal-power-law contradiction. Numerical simulations confirm both the t^{H} law and the transition between regimes. Empirical analysis of arXiv e-prints indicates that the latent attention process is intrinsically antipersistent (H≈0.13). By linking memory effects and stochastic fluctuations in attention to broader network dynamics, our findings provide a unifying framework for understanding the evolution of collective attention in science and other attention-driven processes.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1103/l2xd-43n9
  26. Plant Cell Physiol. 2025 Nov 21. pii: pcaf153. [Epub ahead of print]
    Assessing the impact of Japanese team grants in plant science.
    Akiko Hashiguchi, Kazuo N Watanabe, Satoru Takahashi.
      
    Keywords:  Co-authorship relationship; KAKENHI; research and development system; research evaluation; research performance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcaf153
  27. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2025 Nov 21. 1-3
    From abstract to article: publication rates of abstracts presented at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America spring conference 2018 and 2021.
    Aayushi Rajani, Shifa Karatela, Lipi Modha, Hitanshi Bhuptani, Purav Shah, Abhijeet Shukla, Juhi Amin, Devisha Gandhi, Rohit Chitale, Ravi Durvasula, Justin Oring.
      The publication rate of abstracts presented at a conference can provide some insight into its academic quality, although it is hardly the sole metric. We evaluated 351 SHEA Spring Conference abstracts; 49.9% were published. Findings demonstrate the strong academic output of SHEA conferences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2025.10348
  28. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2025 Nov 18. pii: jraf018. [Epub ahead of print]
    Who wins? Professional identity and the American Association for the History of Medicine's early career scholar awards.
    Justin Barr, Deborah Doroshow, Todd Olszewski, Kristen Ann Ehrenberger.
      The American Association for the History of Medicine endeavors to represent the entire field and all those interested in the subject. Over time, its core membership has shifted from mostly amateur clinician historians to professionals with a PhD, resulting in a corresponding change in content and culture. In an effort to foster interest among both younger clinicians and historians, the organization sponsors multiple essay contests. Tracking the number of winners who ultimately publish their essays, where such publications reside, from which institutions they herald, and how long they remain members reveals that medical students are by far the least likely to publish and almost never retain their membership. Graduate students in history and early career scholars are far more likely to publish their work and remain a part of the organization. This paper proposes several strategies to try to recruit and retain more amateur clinician-historians.
    Keywords:  American Association for the History of Medicine; Osler Award; Pressman Award; Shyrock Award; clinician historian
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jraf018
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒12‒01 at 23:39.