bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–06–14
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Publication metrics across radiology subspecialties: A point-in-time analysis.
  2. Research Productivity Among Orthodontic Residents and Fellows Across Training Programs in the United States.
  3. From Research to Impact: Assessing a Decade of CDC's Public Health Science by Topic Area, 2014-2023.
  4. Gender inequities in patterns of authorship contributions in dentistry: an observational study.
  5. Research productivity, collaboration patterns, and socio-economic correlates of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease research in Southeast Asia: a bibliometric analysis.
  6. Artificial intelligence in lung cancer: a bibliometric analysis of emerging trends and research hotspots.
  7. Research Progress of Puerarin and Its Benefits in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Bibliometric Analysis.
  8. Research Publications Among Canadian Plastic Surgery Residents Over 10 Years: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
  9. Tracking Scholarly Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgery: A Departmental Scholarly Index Analysis.
  10. A mixed-corpus scientometric dataset of precision livestock farming publications and patents, 2006-2025.
  11. Trends in Female First Authorship in Anatomical Science International: A 24-Year Analysis (2002-2025).
  12. Specialty representation and interdisciplinary collaboration in hand surgery research over four decades.
  13. Commentary: CiteSpace-based visualization of nutritional research hotspots for oncology patients.
  14. Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health.
  15. Gender Disparities in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Orthopaedic Surgeons Are Improving But Still Persist.
  16. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Publications in Orthopaedics: A Ten-year Geographical and Subject Assessment.
  17. Publication Rate and Discontinuation Percentage of Registered Trials Involving Rotator Cuff Pathology.
  18. Boosting Biomedical Research Capacity: The Role of INBRE-Supported Core Facility Vouchers in IDeA States.
  19. From Project to Publication: A Decade of Pharmacy Residency Research in the British Columbia Lower Mainland (2011/12-2020/21).
  20. The Role of Data Papers in Scientific Data Dissemination and Reuse.
  21. Authors' academic but not personal expertise or gender affect message credibility in science communication.
  22. Multivariate Analysis of Social Media Content by United States Orthopaedic Residency Program Directors.
  1. Clin Imaging. 2026 Aug;pii: S0899-7071(26)00149-X. [Epub ahead of print]136 110857
    Publication metrics across radiology subspecialties: A point-in-time analysis.
    Mahla Radmard, Rohini Nadgir, David M Yousem.
       PURPOSE: Publication metrics provide an objective means for establishing academic scholarship activity and are impactful for faculty promotion. We performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of academic productivity across radiology subspecialties to better understand the variability in publication metrics of US academic radiology faculty.
    METHODS: Academic faculty from ten radiology subspecialties [Abdominal(AbI), Breast(BI), Cardiothoracic(CTR), Emergency Radiology(ER), Interventional(IR), Musculoskeletal(MSK), Neuroradiology(NR), Neurointerventional(NIR), Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging(NM/MI), and Pediatric(Peds) imaging] were identified from online sources: sex, track and academic rank were recorded. Bibliometric data for these faculty were obtained from Scopus on March 1-2, 2026. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction compared non-normally distributed data. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression estimated adjusted productivity, controlling for academic rank and academic age (years since first publication).
    RESULTS: Among 7330 faculty from 160 institutions, there were significant productivity differences between subspecialties across all bibliometrics (p < 0.001). NIR ranked highest in median publications (54), citations (1259), and h-index (17), followed by NM/MI (39, 826, and 13 respectively). BI, MSK, and ER consistently ranked as the least publication productive subspecialties, with a 9-fold difference in median publications (NIR 54 to ER 6). OLS regression adjusting for rank and academic age confirmed NIR as the most and BI the least publication productive subspecialties.
    CONCLUSIONS: Substantial productivity differences exist between radiology subspecialties. NIR, NM/MI, NR and CTR consistently cluster at the top of bibliometric output with ER, BI and MSK at the bottom. These differences persist after controlling for career length, sex, and academic rank and are useful for annual review and promotion considerations.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citations; H-index; Productivity; Promotion; Publications; Subspecialty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2026.110857
  2. Cureus. 2026 May;18(5): e108511
    Research Productivity Among Orthodontic Residents and Fellows Across Training Programs in the United States.
    Alexander Shakhmurov, Valerie Yakubaev, Daniel Nasimov Bs, Tiffany Babakhanov, Alex Rubinov, Avital Priyev-Kalantarov, Matthew Neryaev, Mark M Shimanov, Yanatan Zakinov.
       BACKGROUND: Orthodontic residency programs increasingly expect residents to present research and publish in peer-reviewed journals, yet resident satisfaction with research opportunities remains low. Historical data indicate declining research productivity, but comprehensive current assessments are lacking.
    OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify and characterize research productivity among orthodontic residents and fellows across training programs in the United States.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using ADEA Pass, we identified orthodontic residency and fellowship programs and compiled rosters for graduating classes 2025-2028. For each trainee, we recorded demographics and training details and conducted systematic PubMed searches to identify publications. Publications were analyzed for authorship position, article type, timing relative to residency, dental relevance, journal impact factor, and citation counts. Statistical analyses compared productivity by sex and post-graduate year (PGY) status.
    RESULTS: Among 686 residents and fellows from 42 programs, only 157/686 (23%) had at least one publication, with an average of 0.5 ± 1.8 total publications per trainee. The cohort produced 369 publications, predominantly basic science (152/369, 41%), and published pre-residency (298/369, 81%). Only 73/369 (20%) were first-author publications. PGY 2 residents consistently outperformed residents in other years across all metrics. Males had a higher proportion of dental-related publications than females (114/158 males, 72% vs 135/211 females, 64%; χ²(1, 369) = 3.96, P = 0.029). Comparing final-year residents, longer program duration (3 vs 2 years) did not significantly increase publication output.
    CONCLUSIONS: Most orthodontic trainees have minimal research involvement, with publications concentrated among a few high-output individuals. Despite expectations for scholarly activity, current research productivity suggests inadequate mentorship, resources, or time dedicated to research. Programs must enhance research infrastructure to ensure trainees can critically evaluate and contribute to evolving orthodontic literature.
    Keywords:  cross-sectional study; dental education; orthodontics; research productivity; residency training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.108511
  3. Public Health Rep. 2026 Jun 11. 333549261451188
    From Research to Impact: Assessing a Decade of CDC's Public Health Science by Topic Area, 2014-2023.
    Joy Ortega, Victoria E Dunkley, Martha Knuth, Christie Kim, Elissa Meites, Brian B Yoo, Katlyn Wainwright, Bao-Ping Zhu, Mary G Reynolds.
       OBJECTIVES: To provide a sound foundation for public health policy and practice, scientific work must address priority topics and reach appropriate audiences. This analysis provides an evaluation of a large public health scientific publication portfolio. We explored the relevance and impact of a decade of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-authored publications.
    METHODS: We used Science Clips, a CDC library database, to identify 34 104 scientific publications published from 2014 through 2023 with ≥1 CDC-affiliated author. To identify public health topics, we applied a large language modeling framework using BERTopic to publication titles and abstracts. We obtained bibliometric indicator data from Altmetric, Dimensions, and BMJ Impact Analytics. We assessed the percentage of publications with online attention, academic citations, and policy citations; the median Altmetric Attention Score; and the median number of academic citations by topic area.
    RESULTS: Of CDC-authored publications published during 2014-2020, 94.6% were cited by academic articles and 52.4% were cited in clinical guidance or policy. Of those published during 2014-2023, 83.8% garnered online attention. Publications clustered into 46 public health topics. Fungal infections had the highest median number of academic citations (36.5 per publication), mining safety and health had the highest proportion of articles with policy citations (92.5%), and substance abuse or opioids received the highest median Altmetric Attention Score (14.0). More than one-quarter of topics ranked in the top 5 for ≥1 of the 3 indicators.
    CONCLUSIONS: CDC-authored scientific publications in this collection addressed an array of public health topics and demonstrated resonance in academic and policy arenas and with the public. Evaluating publication portfolios can strengthen science, policy, and communications partnerships.
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; natural language processing; public health science; topic modeling
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549261451188
  4. Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2026 Apr-Jun;14(2):14(2): e288
    Gender inequities in patterns of authorship contributions in dentistry: an observational study.
    Laura Barreto Moreno, Cristina Helena Morello Sartori, Sarah Arangurem Karam, Marcos Britto Correa, Françoise Hélène van de Sande, Anelise Fernandes Montagner.
       Objective: This observational study investigated gender differences in authorship contributions in high-impact, multidisciplinary dentistry journals.
    Material and Methods: A sample of 396 articles published between January 1 and December 31, 2023, across the five high-impact multidisciplinary journals in the dentistry field was analyzed. The selection of journals considered the impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports 2023 in the dentistry field. It includes the five dental multidisciplinary journals with the highest impact factor, considering journals with multidisciplinary dentistry subjects. Journals with a specific focus on dental areas or multidisciplinary journals covering the same area were excluded. The binary gender of the first and last authors was identified using the Genderize database, and contribution roles were extracted from the authors' statements. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and Pearson's chi-squared tests.
    Results: Men were the majority in both first (57.1%) and last (65.7%) authorship positions. Among first authors, significant gender differences were found: women were more involved in data collection (53.9% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.001) and more likely to contribute to all five authorship categories (p = 0.04). No significant gender differences were observed among the last authors. Geographical variation was noted, with South America showing a higher proportion of women as first authors (64.4%).
    Conclusion: Overall, the study reveals gender disparities in the distribution of scientific labor, particularly in the position of first authorship, and highlights the need for greater equity and transparency in recognizing research contributions.
    Keywords:  authorship; data collection; dentistry; gender; gender inequities
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21142/2523-2754-1402-2026-288
  5. J Health Popul Nutr. 2026 Jun 10.
    Research productivity, collaboration patterns, and socio-economic correlates of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease research in Southeast Asia: a bibliometric analysis.
    Maria Llaine J Callanta, Patrick R Relacion.
       BACKGROUND: Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease (RF/RHD) remain important causes of preventable cardiovascular morbidity in low- and middle-income settings, including Southeast Asia. Although research output on these conditions has increased globally, the extent, thematic focus, and distribution of research productivity within Southeast Asia have not been comprehensively characterized. This study aimed to examine the publication trends, collaboration patterns, funding distribution, thematic focus, and selected socio-economic correlates of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease research in Southeast Asia using bibliometric methods.
    METHODS: Original articles and conference papers on RF/RHD in SEA from 1900 to 2024 were identified using the Scopus database. Bibliometric indicators and citation data were extracted and summarized descriptively. Country collaboration networks and author keyword co-occurrence maps were visualized using VOSviewer. Associations between selected country-level socio-economic indicators and bibliometric measures were explored using correlation analysis.
    RESULTS: A total of 333 records on RF/RHD published between 1900 and 2024 from various SEA countries were obtained. Regional publication output remained relatively high in recent years, although annual counts fluctuated and the 2024 output was incomplete at the time of search. Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines accounted for the largest share of regional output. However, despite this positive trend, SEA's contribution to the global output for RF/RHD research is still below 2.5%. Notably, only one-fifth of the regional publications reported funding support, with marked disparities across countries. The retrieved literature was concentrated in themes related to diagnosis, surgery and complications, registries and epidemiology, anticoagulation, and valvular assessment. In contrast, topics such as social determinants of health, cost-effectiveness, implementation research, and patient-centered care appeared less represented. Country-level research productivity showed positive associations with selected socio-economic indicators and international collaboration, although these findings should be interpreted cautiously.
    CONCLUSION: Research on RF/RHD in Southeast Asia has grown, but publication output and funding remain unevenly distributed across countries. Continued efforts to strengthen international collaboration and research support are needed to amplify research productivity in low-resource Southeast Asian settings.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Cardiology; Citation analysis; Rheumatic heart disease
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41043-026-01354-2
  6. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2026 Jun;88(6): 3158-3169
    Artificial intelligence in lung cancer: a bibliometric analysis of emerging trends and research hotspots.
    Zhi Zheng, Haixia Wang, Zhen Qi, Ri Tang.
       Background: Lung cancer remains the most common cause of global cancer-related deaths. With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, this study aims to review publications on AI applications in lung cancer and identify key research trends and hotspots.
    Methods: Publications from 1997 to 2022 on AI and lung cancer were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace (5.7.R5) and VOSviewer (1.6.16) were used to analyze publication metrics, collaboration patterns, keyword clusters, and research trends. National cooperation was further assessed via the Bibliometric Online Analysis Platform.
    Results: Our results showed that the USA is the leading country in AI and lung cancer from all aspects. Followed by China, with the publication growing in recent years, and the cooperation between the USA and China is the most frequent. The USA expert Wenya Linda Bi has the most citations of 379, and Harvard Medical School has the most citations as institution of 959. However, Maastricht University has the most publications when it comes to the institution. During the past 25 years, the keywords of this field have changed a lot. In the past, the experts mainly focused on the "DNA." With the maturity of AI, the research hotspot evolved to "survival" and "diagnosis."
    Conclusion: AI and lung cancer research are integrating deeply, with areas like "AI + radiomics" advancing precise diagnosis and personalized treatment. This progress is expected to transform early screening and therapy while requiring continued improvements in technology and ethics.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; bibliometrics analysis; lung cancer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000005017
  7. Food Sci Nutr. 2026 May;14(5): e71926
    Research Progress of Puerarin and Its Benefits in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Bibliometric Analysis.
    Wei Wang, Xiang Liu.
      With the development of society and the economy, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become a major chronic disease in contemporary society. Finding a safe, effective, and economical method is essential for the treatment of NAFLD. Puerarin is a unique component of pueraria. In recent years, puerarin has gradually become the focus of research in the natural products field. This article analyzes the research trend of puerarin through VOSviewer software and CiteSpace software. This will be conducive to deepening the understanding of puerarin. Meanwhile, this article also explores the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacological activity of puerarin, as well as the mechanism and progress of puerarin in the treatment of NAFLD, which also provides valuable references for future research in this field.
    Keywords:  NAFLD; NASH; bibliometric analysis; fibrosis; puerarin
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.71926
  8. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2026 Jun 04. 22925503261453069
    Research Publications Among Canadian Plastic Surgery Residents Over 10 Years: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
    Anna-Lisa V Nguyen, Justin Haas, Carolyn Wang, Achilleas Thoma, Helene Retrouvey.
       Background: Scholarly activity is a key aspect of plastic surgery training, influencing resident selection and career progression. However, research productivity among Canadian plastic surgery residents has not been quantified.
    Methods: This cross-sectional study included Canadian plastic surgery residents enrolled between 2015 and 2024, identified through a systematic web search. Scholarly metrics were extracted from Scopus and PubMed. Descriptive statistics summarized demographics and research metrics of residents. Multivariable logistic and negative binomial regression analyses were used to identify associations and predictors of research productivity, defined as publications-per-postgraduate year (PGY).
    Results: Overall, 309 trainees were included (163 active, 146 graduates). Among 163 active residents, 53% identified as female, 41% held a graduate degree, and 11% of active residents were enrolled in a Clinician-Investigator Program (CIP). Mean publication-per-PGY was 0.62 ± 0.92. Higher research productivity was independently associated with preresidency publications (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.09, P < .001), CIP enrolment (IRR=1.88, P = .041), and female identification (IRR=0.58 for males, P = .017). Among 146 graduates, 58% were female, 46% held a graduate degree, and 84% pursued at least one fellowship. Twenty-seven percent hold faculty positions. Faculty appointment was associated with higher research metrics (P < .001), and graduate degree status was the sole independent predictor (odds ratio = 3.41, P = .015). Program requirements and the productivity of PDs and RDs were not significant.
    Conclusions: Research productivity among Canadian plastic surgery residents is primarily influenced by individual factors, specifically preresidency research and CIP enrolment. Program-level factors such as research requirements and metrics of PDs and RDs are not associated with higher productivity in residents. Graduate degree status is a predictor of academic career pursuit, but not of fellowship. These findings aim to enhance scholarly involvement throughout the trainee lifespan and those aspiring for a faculty appointment.
    Keywords:  medical education; plastic surgery; publications; research metrics; residency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503261453069
  9. Ann Plast Surg. 2026 Jun 10.
    Tracking Scholarly Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgery: A Departmental Scholarly Index Analysis.
    Emmanuel Giannas, Georgios Karamitros, Andrew J James, Noah E Alter, Jordan Johnson, Franklin R Gergoudis, Anvith P Reddy, Barite Gutama, Ricardo A Torres-Guzman, Patrick E Assi, Matthew E Pontell, Wesley P Thayer, Galen Perdikis, William C Lineaweaver.
       INTRODUCTION: Assessing departmental scholarly output remains challenging, as traditional bibliometric metrics incompletely capture academic productivity at the department level and are often poorly suited for year-on-year evaluation. The Departmental Scholarly Index (DSI) provides a framework for evaluating aggregate and publication-adjusted departmental academic output over short-term intervals. This study examined year-on-year changes in DSI within an academic plastic surgery department between academic years (AY) 2024 and 2025.
    METHODS: Peer-reviewed publications produced by the Department of Plastic Surgery at a tertiary academic center during AY 2024 and 2025 were retrieved from PubMed. Aggregate DSI was calculated as the sum of journal impact factors across departmental publications following outlier handling, with publication-adjusted DSI defined as aggregate DSI divided by total publications. Year-on-year changes were quantified using absolute and relative percentage differences.
    RESULTS: A total of 57 in AY 2024 and 138 peer-reviewed articles in AY 2025 were included. Aggregate DSI increased from 142.9 to 298.2, representing a 109% year-on-year increase, with increases in basic science research (19.3 to 45.0), clinical research (83.6 to 162.6), and reviews or commentaries (40.0 to 90.6). In contrast, overall publication-adjusted DSI decreased from 2.51 in AY 2024 to 2.16 in AY 2025, with declines observed in basic science research (6.43 to 2.50) and reviews or commentaries (3.08 to 2.27), while clinical research remained relatively stable (2.04 to 2.03).
    CONCLUSION: Utilization of the DSI revealed exponential year-on-year growth in overall departmental academic output. The DSI framework offers a practical approach for longitudinal assessment and benchmarking of departmental academic productivity.
    Keywords:  Departmental Scholarly Index; academic plastic surgery; bibliometric analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004754
  10. Data Brief. 2026 Jun;66 112886
    A mixed-corpus scientometric dataset of precision livestock farming publications and patents, 2006-2025.
    Babatope E Akinyemi, Janice M Siegford.
      This data article presents two harmonized corpora assembled from five major bibliographic and patent databases to support scientometric, bibliometric, and technology landscape research on Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) and farm animal welfare. The publication corpus (n = 1,738 records; 27 fields) integrates records retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection and Scopus, covering peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2025. The patent corpus (n = 3,793 records; 24 fields) consolidates exports from Lens.org, Espacenet (EPO), and PATENTSCOPE (WIPO), spanning granted patents and patent applications filed across the same 20-year window. Both corpora underwent systematic cross-database deduplication, field-level harmonization, and quality verification prior to deposit. The deposited records represent the complete deduplicated dataset; the associated findings paper applies additional eligibility screening, yielding an analytical subset of n = 1,594 publications and n = 3,239 patents. Data are structured in CSV, with a detailed field dictionary, completeness statistics, and multi-valued field delimiters documented herein. Together, the corpora constitute the first publicly available mixed-corpus PLF dataset linking peer-reviewed academic output with patent activity, enabling replication of the analyses reported in the associated findings paper as well as independent investigations into topic modelling, co-authorship network analysis, technology forecasting, and longitudinal benchmarking of PLF innovation. All files are deposited on Zenodo under a CC BY 4.0 license.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Farm animal welfare; Longitudinal data; Mixed-corpus dataset; Patent analysis; Precision Livestock Farming; Scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112886
  11. Cureus. 2026 May;18(5): e108488
    Trends in Female First Authorship in Anatomical Science International: A 24-Year Analysis (2002-2025).
    Takutoshi Inoue, Toru Yamamoto, Norio Kitagawa, Joe Iwanaga.
      In recent years, the promotion of gender equity and diversity in academic research has attracted increasing international attention. However, studies examining gender differences in authorship within the anatomical sciences remain limited. This study analyzed regional differences and temporal trends in the gender distribution of first authors in articles published in Anatomical Science International, the official English-language journal of the Japanese Association of Anatomists. All articles published between 2002 and 2025 were retrieved from PubMed, and the gender, country of affiliation, and article type of first authors were examined. Between-group comparisons were performed using the Bonferroni method, and temporal trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. Among the 1,029 articles included, 283 (27.5%) had female first authors. The proportion of female first authors significantly increased from 29/144 (20.1%) in 2002-2006 to 74/236 (31.4%) in 2022-2025. Regionally, Japan had the lowest proportion (99/487, 20.3%), compared with Asia excluding Japan (52/131, 39.7%) and other regions (134/411, 32.6%). By article type, the proportion of female first authors was lowest in review articles (34/182, 18.7%). These findings suggest that structural and contextual factors, including publication practices and access to research resources, may influence differences in female authorship. Promoting inclusive participation and re-evaluating academic structures may support further development in anatomical research.
    Keywords:  anatomy; authorship trends; female first authors; gender differences; women in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.108488
  12. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2026 Jun 10. 17531934261453314
    Specialty representation and interdisciplinary collaboration in hand surgery research over four decades.
    Emanuele M Ghetti, Carmine Scarlato, Edoardo Caimi, Kian Daneshi, Giorgio E Pajardi, Luigi Troisi.
       INTRODUCTION: Hand surgery is a multidisciplinary field involving surgical and rehabilitation disciplines. Although clinical care often requires collaboration between specialties, the academic structure of hand surgery research and the relative contributions of different disciplines remain incompletely characterized. We studied specialty representation and patterns of interdisciplinary collaboration in hand surgery literature over four decades.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis was done on publications indexed in PubMed from six dedicated hand surgery journals between 1980 and 2025. Bibliographic metadata were retrieved through automated database queries and author affiliations were analysed using computational text pattern matching to classify specialties represented in each publication. Specialty representation and interdisciplinary collaboration were assessed across the decades.
    RESULTS: A total of 22,021 publications were identified, of which 18,229 contained analysable affiliation data. Orthopaedic surgery represented the most frequent specialty involvement, followed by hand surgery units and plastic surgery. Plastic surgery maintained a relatively stable proportion across the decades despite reports of declining participation in hand surgery training. Interdisciplinary collaboration increased substantially over time, with a fivefold increase in multi-specialty publications across the decades. Hand therapy was the most frequent non-surgical collaborator and surgeon-hand therapist publications increased progressively over the study period.
    CONCLUSION: Hand surgery research has evolved toward greater interdisciplinary collaboration. Orthopaedic surgery remains the most represented specialty, while plastic surgery maintains a stable academic contribution. These findings support the concept of hand surgery as a shared academic domain in which collaboration between surgical and rehabilitation disciplines may drive future innovation and improvements in patient outcomes.
    Keywords:  Hand surgery; hand therapy; interdisciplinary collaboration; research trends; surgical specialties
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934261453314
  13. Front Nutr. 2026 ;13 1838665
    Commentary: CiteSpace-based visualization of nutritional research hotspots for oncology patients.
    Paolo Pedrazzoli, Elisa Mattavelli, Lorenzo Perrone, Alberto Ambrosio, Riccardo Caccialanza.
      
    Keywords:  bibliometric; cancer; nutritional assessment; nutritional support; visual analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2026.1838665
  14. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 12. pii: 18. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health.
    Guidetti Paolo, Bianchi Carlo Nike, Baxter John, Pelke Nane, Boudouresque Charles-François.
      The paper examines structural distortions in contemporary scientific publishing and their implications for research quality, equity, ethics and environmental conservation. Despite being largely publicly funded, scientists continue to provide unpaid labour as reviewers and editors while facing increasing publication fees or subscription costs. The rapid proliferation of journals has intensified reviewer fatigue, reduced the availability of qualified referees, and contributed to declining peer-review quality. These conditions, combined with status biases and insufficient editorial oversight, seriously risk to undermine the reliability of published research. The expansion of predatory journals and exploitative open-access models further erodes trust in scientific communication. In a publish-or-perish environment driven by bibliometric evaluation, there is a proliferation of low-quality and fraudulent research, amplified by AI-generated content. This dynamic benefits commercial publishers, whose profit margins have grown sharply, while draining financial resources from academic institutions. The resulting "vampirization" of the research system exacerbates global inequities and contributes to an exponential increase in publications with limited scientific or societal impact. To counteract this trajectory, we propose that scientists prioritise journals governed by scientific societies or public institutions, and those that adopt ethical publishing practices, especially avoiding predatory publishers. Collective actions-such as mass resignations from editorial boards in response to unreasonable publication charges-are presented as effective strategies. Institutions are encouraged to shift evaluation criteria from quantity to quality, discourage unethical practices, and promote interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in conservation science. We acknowledge the inherent imperfections of past systems but emphasise that the current drift poses significant risks, especially for fields informing environmental policy making. Declining primary research quality may cascade into misguided decision-making at all scales. We call for systemic reform, including an international accreditation system for journals and publishers based on transparent ethical standards and overseen by public research agencies. Ensuring access to reliable, high-quality scientific information is essential for supporting conservation, sustainability, and the broader societal role of science.
    Keywords:  Journals’ proliferation; Publishing ethics; Scientific quality; Societal consequences
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00206-1
  15. JB JS Open Access. 2026 Apr-Jun;11(2):pii: e26.00109. [Epub ahead of print]11(2):
    Gender Disparities in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Orthopaedic Surgeons Are Improving But Still Persist.
    David N Bernstein, Gabrielle S Ray, Emily B Parker, Cat N Johnson, Tamara D Rozental, A Holly Johnson.
       Background: Prior research has revealed gender disparities in the financial relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons. Despite attempts to level the playing field, it remains unclear whether these efforts have reduced or eliminated gender disparities in financial relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons.
    Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was queried from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024 for orthopaedic surgeons receiving "consulting fee" or "royalty or license" payments of $1,000 or more. Surgeon characteristics were recorded from the CMS database and public sources. Total payment amounts and number of payments were calculated. Characteristics were compared by gender between those receiving any industry payment, consulting payment, and royalty payment. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with payment amount and number of payments. Results were compared with a study using similar data from 2016 to 2017.
    Results: A total of 3,714 surgeons received industry payments, with 3,514 (95%) being men. Of those receiving royalty payments (n = 1,374), 1.5% (n = 21) were women. Of those receiving consulting payments (n = 3,122), 6.2% (n = 194) were women. Men (β = 1.57 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-2.73, p = 0.008), years of experience (β = 0.09 [95% CI: 0.07-0.12], p < 0.001), and adult reconstruction (β = 1.77 [95% CI: 0.76-2.79], p = 0.001) were associated with a greater total number of payments. Hand surgery (β = -2.57 [95% CI: 3.97 to -1.17], p < 0.001), pediatrics (β = -2.62 [95% CI: 4.60 to -0.64], p = 0.01), and sports (β = -1.12 [95% CI: 2.08 to -0.16], p = 0.02) were associated with the fewer total number of payments. Men (β = 0.34 [95% CI: 0.10-0.57], p = 0.004), years of experience (β = 0.051 [95% CI: 0.046-0.056], p < 0.001), and adult reconstruction (β = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.27-0.68], p < 0.001) were associated with greater payment amounts, while hand (β = -0.96 [95% CI: 1.24 to -0.68], p < 0.001) and pediatrics (β = -0.79 [95% CI: 1.18 to -0.39], p < 0.001) were associated with lower payment amounts. When examining trends over time, men received 1.57 (2024) vs. 5.17 (2016-2017) additional payments and 40% (2024) vs. 197% (2016-2017) larger payments compared with women.
    Conclusions: Gender disparities in financial relationships (i.e., number of payments and payment amounts) between industry and orthopaedic surgeons persist, though are improved compared with prior research from about a decade ago.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.26.00109
  16. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2026 ;18 162661
    Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Publications in Orthopaedics: A Ten-year Geographical and Subject Assessment.
    Lachlan F Anderson, Erica Olfson, Whitaker Reid, Shawn Okpara, David N Shau.
       Introduction: Orthopaedic research output varies across the U.S., shaped by institutional priorities and resources. This study examines geographic trends in diversity, equity, and/or inclusion (DEI) topics within orthopaedic publications over the past decade.
    Methods: A search of orthopaedic surgery articles published between January 1st, 2014 to April 30th, 2024 was conducted through PubMed. Articles retrieved underwent a two-reviewer screening process to confirm primary focus of diversity topics within orthopaedics. Included articles were organized by location of the first author's institutional affiliation and year published. Article focus was then categorized by the following major categories: race/ethnicity, sex, LGBTQ+, and/or socioeconomic status.
    Results: Out of 424 articles which met inclusion criteria, 378 (89.2%) were published by authors affiliated with U.S. institutions. New York (n=41) and California (n=41) had the most orthopaedic publications with a DEI focus, while 13 states had zero associated publications. Sex was the most common subject of focus, followed by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and LGBTQ+.
    Discussion: The results of this review illustrate how there appears to be distinct geographical differences in orthopaedic publications which focused on DEI, with two states publishing a relative majority of manuscripts. Specific subtopics were also more prominent than others, with sex disparities representing the predominant focus. Our review therefore sheds light on the presence of geographic variations in DEI-related research and the potential practical significance of these trends.
    Keywords:  Diversity Equity and Inclusion; Gender and race disparities.; Geographic variation; Orthopaedic research; Publication trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.162661
  17. Orthop J Sports Med. 2026 Jun;14(6): 23259671261437302
    Publication Rate and Discontinuation Percentage of Registered Trials Involving Rotator Cuff Pathology.
    Joan Miquel, Arnau Verdaguer-Figuerola, Mireia Vinas-Noguera, Mònica Salomó-Domènech, Aritz Lizundia, Carlos Torrens.
       Background: Although many clinical trials are conducted on rotator cuff tears, a significant number of patient-enrolled studies remain unpublished, resulting in potential gaps in the sharing of scientific knowledge.
    Purpose: To analyze the publication rate and discontinuation percentage of registered trials involving rotator cuff pathology.
    Study Design: Cross-sectional study.
    Methods: A search for clinical trials was conducted in 4 different registries in a retrospective cohort study. Nontherapeutic studies, trials based on rehabilitation or anesthesia, or studies that had not completed recruitment and analysis before 2022 were excluded. The studies were classified according to their topic of interest, status in the registry, and funding. The sample size and study methods were also documented.The existence of an indexed publication in PubMed and Embase was verified, along with the final sample size included and the type of study. The corresponding authors of unpublished studies were contacted to explore the fate of the research project. The reasons for trial discontinuation were registered.
    Results: Of the 152 included trials, 60 (39.47%) were not published in an indexed journal and 36 (23.68%) were discontinued. Studies of biological treatments presented a greater risk of discontinuation than trials on other topics (38.18% vs 15.46%; P = .03). One-third of published trials (27.17%) presented major inconsistencies concerning the original registry data.
    Conclusion: Approximately 40% of the trials on rotator cuff tears were not published. Research on biological therapies showed a higher rate of discontinuation.
    Keywords:  publication bias; registered trials; rotator cuff trials; trial discontinuation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671261437302
  18. J Biomol Tech. 2026 ;37(2): 7-12
    Boosting Biomedical Research Capacity: The Role of INBRE-Supported Core Facility Vouchers in IDeA States.
    Laura M Lessard, Melinda K Duncan.
      Research universities and institutes invest in building core facilities that allow investigators to access the costly instrumentation and specialized expertise needed to perform cutting edge biomedical research. For the past 30 years, the National Institutes of Health has supported the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) initiative which supports research capacity, including core facility construction, in U.S. states which receive disproportionately little NIH funding. IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) programs particularly support research in primarily undergraduate institutions (PUI) and other resource constrained sites, and have built core facilities intended to broaden access to biomedical research training to students enrolled at PUIs. However, researchers in IDeA states (especially those working at PUIs), often lack the funding needed to pay core facility user fees needed to collect preliminary data for grant applications or key experiments needed for publications, which reduces investigator competitiveness for future funding. In order to overcome this hurdle, INBRE programs serving 12 different states have developed voucher programs that support core facility access. Here we describe the structure of these programs and provide evidence from one state (Delaware) that these modest investments have a significant impact on research productivity as measured by downstream publications and grants, while also fostering the viability of research core facilities by building demand for core services. Across the country, INBRE-supported Core Voucher programs contribute significantly to the biomedical research enterprise fueling future research and innovation.
    Keywords:  Capacity Building; Core Facilities; Financing; Research Infrastructure; Voucher Programs
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7171/001c.159214
  19. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2026 ;79(2): e3916
    From Project to Publication: A Decade of Pharmacy Residency Research in the British Columbia Lower Mainland (2011/12-2020/21).
    Alyssa G Burrows, Nakyung Kim, Roxane Carr, Jennifer Kendrick.
       Background: Research is a key component of pharmacy residencies, helping residents to develop research, communication, and time management skills. Publishing benefits residents professionally and shares findings with the clinical community, potentially improving patient care. Previous research found that pharmacy residency publication rates were 13% in the United States (1981-2018) and 32.2% in Canada, with a British Columbia-specific rate of 34.4% (1999/2000-2008/2009).
    Objectives: To determine the publication rate of Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services (LMPS) pharmacy residency projects for the period 2011/12 to 2020/21 and to characterize the studies performed.
    Methods: A scoping review was conducted. Posters from LMPS residents (2011/12-2020/21) were compiled, and data on project and team characteristics were extracted. A standardized search of multiple data sources was used to identify publications based on the poster projects. Publication date and journal information were collected.
    Results: Of the 241 residency projects over the study period, 85 (35.3%) were published in 39 peer-reviewed journals across various topics; of these, 43 (50.6%) appeared in the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. The average time to publication was 24 (standard deviation [SD] 13) months after graduation. The 241 projects had an average of 3.4 (SD 1.6) collaborators, and 107 (44.4%) involved multidisciplinary members. Most of the 241 projects were conducted at a single site (68.5%, n = 165), most were retrospective (73.9%, n = 178), and most were cohort studies (63.9%, n = 154). The direction of inquiry (i.e., prospective vs retrospective) significantly affected publication status (p = 0.012), whereas the number of collaborators, the project's scope, and the study design did not affect publication.
    Conclusions: Despite growth in the LMPS pharmacy residency program, publication rates for residents' projects were similar to those previously reported, and most projects remain unpublished. Using qualitative and quantitative methods to survey residents and preceptors may identify barriers to publication and inform the development of targeted supports.
    Keywords:  pharmacy residencies; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.3916
  20. Sci Data. 2026 Jun 11.
    The Role of Data Papers in Scientific Data Dissemination and Reuse.
    Liyue Chen, Zihao Qu, Na Ma, Xiaomin Liu.
      Data papers have emerged as a distinctive publication format in the open science era, yet their actual role in fostering scientific data reuse remains uncertain. Drawing on extensive citation-context datasets and large language models, this study investigates the specific contributions and citation purposes of data papers, complemented by a comparative analysis across diverse disciplinary domains. The findings show that while data papers significantly enhance dataset visibility and scholarly recognition, most citations emphasize descriptive or contextual information rather than facilitating direct computational, comparative, or synthetic reuse. Moreover, despite persistent advocacy for a "data-driven" research paradigm, the contribution of data papers to catalyzing novel scientific insights appears to be modest and often indirect. Notable disciplinary differences reveal that data-intensive fields, such as Earth and Life Sciences, embed datasets directly into research workflows, whereas more conceptual domains primarily treat data papers as methodological guides or contextual references. Additionally, publishing attributes-spanning journal practices to national data infrastructures-emerge as critical determinants of reuse patterns, with dissemination effectiveness shaped more by publication management and the thematic priorities of editors than by output volume alone.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-07559-8
  21. Sci Rep. 2026 Jun 10. pii: 18000. [Epub ahead of print]16(1):
    Authors' academic but not personal expertise or gender affect message credibility in science communication.
    Annalena Ulsperger, Lara Pfannenschwarz, Clara Schetla, Karen Poletilo, Lina Strecker, Marlene Egner, Joachim Kimmerle.
      Evaluating message credibility is critical for understanding scientific information and informed decision making. People's ability to assess the credibility of science communication texts is influenced by several factors. In three experiments, we examined the impact of authors' gender as well as different types of expertise on readers' credibility perceptions. In Experiment 1 (n = 203), we varied authors' alleged gender and expertise. We found that a text allegedly written by a high-expertise author was rated as more credible than the same text by a low-expertise author. There was no effect of authors' gender. Experiment 2 (n = 182) was a replication of the first study with a different sample. We did not find any effects of gender or expertise on perceived message credibility. In Experiment 3 (n = 206), we differentiated between academic and personal expertise and manipulated these types of expertise independently. The data indicated that academic expertise was a significant positive predictor of perceived message credibility, while personal expertise was not. We discuss these findings in terms of their significance for the trustworthiness of science communication and examine the relevance of differentiating the concept of expertise in this context.
    Keywords:  Academic expertise; Credibility; Expertise; Personal expertise; Science communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-55148-x
  22. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2026 ;35(2): 95-97
    Multivariate Analysis of Social Media Content by United States Orthopaedic Residency Program Directors.
    Yasmine Ghattas, Alison Grise, Mohammad Tahseen Alkaelani, Joshua Cassinat, Katherine Druskovich, Joshua Langford, Lisa K Cannada, Benjamin C Service.
      The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to analyze how orthopaedic program directors (PDs) use their public social media accounts to connect with followers. Orthopaedic residency PDs' (n = 202) Instagram accounts were evaluated for type of account (public versus private), followers/following, and posts. The most common forms used were Doximity (98%) and LinkedIn (52.5%), followed by Instagram (33%), Facebook (14%), and Twitter (12.8%). Of the 67 (33%) PDs with personal Instagram accounts, there was a higher proportion of personal content posts 525 (55%) (p < 0.01). Educational content was identified in 19% of posts. There was a larger number of followers for PDs with public Instagram accounts (324 +/- 400) compared to those with private accounts (145 +/- 183) (p = 0.016). Social media is a way for PDs to display their program and reach a broader audience. There is significant room for growth by PDs to increase the volume of educational and academic content. Further research is needed to determine optimal social media educational and academic impact for PDs. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 35(2):095-097, 2026).
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒07‒14 at 3:06.