bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–07–05
twenty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. A bibliometric assessment of the Indian Journal of Psychiatry: Trends, impact, and collaboration (2009-2024).
  2. Evaluation of scientific outcomes of TDR-supported clinical research and development fellows in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.
  3. Bibliometric productivity of academic emergency radiology faculty in the United States: Current status.
  4. Up and Down of Cancer Research and Treatment (CRT)'s Journal Impact Factor at the Moment of CRT's 60th Anniversary.
  5. Beyond Publication Counts: Trends in Neurosurgical Publishing via a Retrospective Analysis of the Arms Race Control Score.
  6. Retracted Publications Related to Statistics: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis.
  7. Oncology research in the kingdom of Bahrain: a four-decade bibliometric evolution.
  8. Contribution of Countries and International Collaboration in Clinical Pharmacology Research. A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Study of Six Top Ranked Specialty Society Journals.
  9. Article Processing Charges in General Surgery Journals: Implications for Equitable Publishing Access in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.
  10. Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023.
  11. Gender Trends in Authorship Across Neuroradiology Journals (2016-2025).
  12. Polish Heart Journal improves its standing: a record Impact Factor of 4.4.
  13. Authorship asymmetry at the Women in Thoracic Surgery Inaugural Annual Conference: Gender pairings and senior status disparity.
  14. Gender disparity in rheumatology clinical guidelines: "rheum" for improvement?
  15. Training Stage, Program Pedigree, Degree Pathway, and Research Productivity among United States Gastroenterology Fellows.
  16. Publication time valid prediction of citation risk outcomes in a bounded clinical specialty literature corpus.
  17. Brokerage, Gender, and Academic Performance in Interdisciplinary Co-Authorship Networks: A Study of Policy-Related Social Learning Publications.
  18. The value of interdisciplinary exposure: how university disciplinary diversity shapes research productivity of PhD students.
  19. Integrity in Radiation Oncology Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Studies, Retraction Notices, and Their Impact on the Field.
  20. Paper mill cancer studies get double the number of citations as genuine papers.
  1. Indian J Psychiatry. 2026 Jun;68(6): 510-516
    A bibliometric assessment of the Indian Journal of Psychiatry: Trends, impact, and collaboration (2009-2024).
    Sandeep Grover, Raju Vaishya, Brij M Gupta, Namita Mahapatra, S M Chaman, S Madhu.
       Background: The Indian Journal of Psychiatry (IJP) serves as a premier repository for psychiatric research in India.
    Aim: This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to evaluate the journal's publication trends and citation impact from 2009 to 2024.
    Methods: Bibliographic data were retrieved from the Scopus database, covering the period from January 2009 to December 2024. A final dataset of 2,357 publications was analyzed for this paper.
    Results: The journal experienced robust growth, registering an average annual publication growth rate of 9.16% over the 16 years. The journal's Impact Factor rose significantly from 0.384 in 2010 to a peak of 3.1 in 2022. Authors from India contributed 88.63% of the total output, anchored by institutions such as the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore, and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, although international contributions from countries like Switzerland (Citation per paper [CPP]: 22.36), Germany (CPP: 17.68), Canada (CPP: 17.68), and Italy (CPP: 17.63) demonstrated a higher citation efficiency compared to those from India (11.6). The authorship pattern revealed a definitive shift from single-author (reduced from 28.65% to 9.9%) to collaborative, multiauthor research. Thematically, research concentrated on core areas such as depression and schizophrenia, while displaying responsiveness to emerging crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Conclusion: The IJP has consistently demonstrated a trajectory of upward influence and academic reputation over the past 16 years. While the journal serves as a vibrant ecosystem for domestic research, future strategies should focus on leveraging international collaborations to enhance global visibility and citation impact further.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Indian Journal of Psychiatry; citation analysis; impact factor; mental health; research trends; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry_61_26
  2. Infect Dis Poverty. 2026 Jul 01. pii: 73. [Epub ahead of print]15(1):
    Evaluation of scientific outcomes of TDR-supported clinical research and development fellows in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.
    Mahnaz Vahedi, Prabin Dahal, Elham Jaberi, Dawit Getachew Assefa, Wastiq Maula, Nuria Casamitjana, Pascal Launois.
       BACKGROUND: The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), co-sponsored by World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank, launched the Clinical Research and Development Fellowship (CRDF) in 1999 to strengthen clinical research capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite sustained investment, evidence on the longer-term scientific outcomes of such programmes remains limited. This study evaluated the scientific outcomes of the CRDF programme (1999-2021) using bibliometric analysis of fellows' peer-reviewed publications before and after their fellowship.
    METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was conducted on peer-reviewed publications authored by CRDF fellows from 1999 through 2021. Publication data were retrieved from Open Researcher and Contributor ID profiles and verified using PubMed, Google search, and Google scholar. A retrospective bibliometric analysis was conducted using descriptive and comparative statistical methods to evaluate publication productivity, authorship position, journal quality metrics, collaboration patterns, disease focus, and research themes before and after fellowship participation. Analyses were conducted using R statistical software. Scientific outcome of the fellowship was judged based on the evolution of collaboration network, journal metrics, and seniority in authorship.
    RESULTS: Among 128 fellows, 76 had verifiable publications, contributing a total of 1821 peer-reviewed articles. Publications were predominantly produced after fellowship participation (1309; 71.9%), compared with 512 pre-fellowship publications. Median publications per fellow increased from 5 [interquartile range (IQR): 2-10] before the fellowship to 14 (IQR: 8-28). The proportion of first-author publications declined (30.7-19.2%), while last-author publications increased (8.0-11.0%), suggesting progression toward senior research roles. Journal quality improved, with publications in Q1 journals increasing from 66.6 to 71.3%, and the median impact factor rising from 2.8 (IQR: 1.9-3.9) to 3.4 (IQR: 2.6-4.9). North-South collaborations increased substantially after the fellowship, while South-South collaborations grew modestly.
    CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the CRDF programme was associated with a visible increase in research productivity, publication quality, and international collaboration among fellows. Research output aligned closely with infectious diseases of poverty and evolving global health priorities. While the collaboration network expanded, leadership as gauged by the evolution of authorship position remained constrained, highlighting the need for continued investment in research leadership development. Bibliometric analysis offers a useful approach for examining longer-term scientific outcomes of capacity-strengthening initiatives, while recognizing its limitations in capturing broader policy and societal impacts.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Clinical research fellowship; Low- and middle-income countries; Research capacity strengthening
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-026-01474-1
  3. Emerg Radiol. 2026 Jun 29.
    Bibliometric productivity of academic emergency radiology faculty in the United States: Current status.
    Roni Kazazi, David M Yousem, Mehmet Emin Adin.
       BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bibliometric benchmarks for academic emergency radiology faculty are not well established. We assessed the bibliometric profiles of U.S. academic emergency radiology faculty and determined the independent contributions of academic rank, faculty track, sex, and fellowship institution affiliation to scholarly productivity. A secondary aim was to compare bibliometric productivity of emergency radiology faculty against four other radiology subspecialties using rank-adjusted cross-subspecialty models.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional bibliometric analysis included 518 emergency radiology faculty from 67 U.S. institutions, with data collected from Scopus between September and December 2025. For cross-subspecialty comparisons, linear mixed-effects models adjusting for rank and institutional clustering were applied.
    RESULTS: No significant sex differences were found at any rank after Bonferroni correction. Research/tenure-track faculty were significantly more productive than clinical-track faculty at the associate and full professor levels, but not at the assistant professor level. The productivity advantage of ASER-recognized fellowship institutions was entirely explained by their higher proportion of research/tenure-track faculty. After rank adjustment, emergency radiology faculty had significantly lower bibliometric output than neuroradiology and cardiothoracic imaging faculty (all p < 0.001). Interventional radiology was the most comparable subspecialty, with no significant differences in citations or h-index.
    CONCLUSIONS: Academic rank is the primary driver of bibliometric productivity in emergency radiology. Based on the findings of this study, faculty track independently influences output at mid- and senior career stages. No significant sex differences were identified. The fellowship institution productivity advantage reflects track composition rather than program presence. Emergency radiology faculty demonstrate lower rank-adjusted output than neuroradiology and cardiothoracic imaging, while remaining most comparable to interventional radiology.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citation; Emergency radiology; promotion; publication; H-index
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-026-02503-0
  4. Cancer Res Treat. 2026 Jun 23.
    Up and Down of Cancer Research and Treatment (CRT)'s Journal Impact Factor at the Moment of CRT's 60th Anniversary.
    Yong Chan Ahn.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2026.0664
  5. Neurosurg Pract. 2026 Aug;7(4): e000262
    Beyond Publication Counts: Trends in Neurosurgical Publishing via a Retrospective Analysis of the Arms Race Control Score.
    Clayton R Baker, Sameer Sundrani, Astoria Chao, Austin Hilvert, Lohit K Velagapudi, Lola B Chambless.
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Research productivity has become increasingly emphasized in neurosurgery residency applications, and applicant publication counts continue to rise. The Arms Race Control Score (ARCS) was proposed to standardize research effort, but its temporal stability and predictive value for future output remain unclear. Among board-certified US neurosurgeons, we sought to retrospectively examine how the ARCS has evolved temporally across 20 residency cohorts (1995-2014) and evaluate the predictive value of the ARCS on postresidency research productivity.
    METHODS: Publication data for neurosurgeons certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery between 2009 and 2024 were extracted from Scopus. Leveraging large-language model analysis of Scopus's document type, title, journal, and abstract, publications were categorized based on ARCS criteria. For each surgeon, ARCS was calculated at the time of residency start. Distributions were analyzed across 5-year residency cohorts. Correlations and multivariable regressions tested associations between ARCS and long-term outputs (postresidency publication total, citation total, and h-index), adjusting for years since residency graduation and pre-residency publication count.
    RESULTS: This cohort included 1776 board-certified neurosurgeons who began residency between 1995 and 2014 and had a total of 96 249 publications. ARCS steadily increased over time (P < .001), with the most recent cohort (2010-2014) having a significantly higher ARCS than all previous cohorts on post hoc comparisons. ARCS was positively correlated with all long-term research metrics, even when controlling for duration since residency graduation (all P < .001). In multivariable regression, both ARCS and pre-residency publication count predicted postresidency publication total and h-index. However, only ARCS predicted postresidency citation total.
    CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort, ARCS moderately increased in more recent residency cohorts and is a modest, independent predictor of long-term research productivity. These findings support ARCS as a complementary metric-alongside holistic review-for interpreting applicant research beyond raw counts.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Neurosurgical education; Publication arms race
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1227/neuprac.0000000000000262
  6. J Korean Med Sci. 2026 Jun 29. 41(25): e175
    Retracted Publications Related to Statistics: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis.
    Aizhan Oralbek, Marlen Yessirkepov, Olena Zimba, Ainur B Qumar, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit.
       BACKGROUND: Statistics is a field that provides the methodological basis for modern scientific research, including data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The retraction procedure involves the official removal of a work from the literature due to substantial scientific concerns. Analysis of retracted publications is critical for identifying ethical violations and structural flaws in scientific publishing.
    METHODS: This study performed a bibliometric and descriptive analysis of publications labeled as "retracted" in the Scopus database, retrieved via a search utilizing the term "statistics" on August 18, 2025. The analysis of documents was conducted based on year, country, journal, keyword, and reasons for retraction. Collaboration networks of countries and authors were displayed with VOSviewer software, and reasons for retraction were confirmed using the Retraction Watch Database. Temporal trends were assessed by linear regression analysis.
    RESULTS: A total of 680 retracted papers were examined. Retractions occurred between 2006 and 2025. A statistically significant upward trend was found in the number of retracted articles over time (P = 0.030). The most retracted publications came from China (n = 426), followed by India (n = 67), and the United States (n = 49). The Journal of Healthcare Engineering (n = 35) and Journal of Sensors (n = 25) stood out among the journals with the most retracted publications. The most common retraction reasons were investigation by journal/publisher (n = 297), unreliable results and/or conclusions (n = 189), and concerns/issues about referencing/attributions (n = 153).
    CONCLUSION: The number of retracted publications tagged with the keyword "statistics" has increased significantly over the years. This increase can be attributed to strengthening scientific oversight mechanisms and increased awareness of publication ethics. Increasing the involvement of statistical experts in the peer-review process, improving the statistical literacy of authors, and developing training and mentoring mechanisms to prevent ethical violations are crucial.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Ethics; Retraction of Publication as Topic; Statistical Studies; Statistics; Statistics as Topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2026.41.e175
  7. Front Oncol. 2026 ;16 1829889
    Oncology research in the kingdom of Bahrain: a four-decade bibliometric evolution.
    Randah R Hamadeh, Enjy Khedr, Haitham Jahrami.
       Introduction: Bahrain reports the highest age-standardized cancer incidence among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, but its oncology research output has not been comprehensively mapped. We profiled four decades of Bahrain-linked cancer publications to describe growth, contributors, collaboration, impact, and gaps.
    Methods: We searched Scopus and PubMed from inception to December 2024 using cancer-related terms combined with "Bahrain". We included articles, reviews, editorials, letters, conference papers, and book chapters. After deduplication, screening, and manual supplementation, 502 publications were analyzed by year, document type, journal quartile, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Bahraini authorship and first-author affiliation, geographic scope, study design, citations, and cancer site grouped using the ICD-O (3rd edition).
    Results: The first indexed paper appeared in 1981. Output was low until 2010, then increased sharply; 77.7% of publications appeared from 2011 to 2024, peaking at 66 papers in 2024. Articles accounted for 69.3% of the outputs, and reviews accounted for 21.7%, with greater diversity after 2010. The Bahrain Medical Bulletin was the most common outlet (20.2%). Salmaniya Medical Complex led in first-author output, followed by Arabian Gulf University and King Hamad University Hospital. Bahraini first authorship was observed in 66.7% of papers, and most studies were conducted exclusively in Bahrain (65.3%), although the proportion of global collaborations increased to 17.0% from 2021 to 2024. Descriptive designs predominated (57%, including 25.5% case reports), whereas analytic studies were uncommon (4.3%). Breast cancer was the most studied site-specific cancer (23.3%), followed by digestive organ cancers (11.4%); 27.1% of the papers addressed "unspecified" cancer. Respiratory and intrathoracic cancers remain persistently underrepresented despite a high mortality burden. Journal quality improved after 2010, reflected by increasing Q1/Q2 representation and higher SJR distributions. The citation peaks from 2014 to 2018 were driven by highly cited multinational collaborative publications.
    Conclusions: Bahrain's oncology research output has increased more than 30-fold over four decades, with expanding institutional participation and increasing international collaboration. Persistent reliance on descriptive designs and gaps in high-burden cancers-especially lung cancer-highlights priorities for capacity building, targeted funding, and a nationally aligned oncology research agenda for policy action.
    Keywords:  bibliometric; cancer research; citation analysis; oncology; research productivity; sarcoma
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2026.1829889
  8. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2026 Aug;139(2): e70269
    Contribution of Countries and International Collaboration in Clinical Pharmacology Research. A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Study of Six Top Ranked Specialty Society Journals.
    Rafael Dal-Ré, Lucía Llanos, Ignacio Mahillo-Fernández.
      There are no bibliometrics analyses on articles published in clinical pharmacology journals. We aimed to determine the countries in which authors of original investigations or meta-analyses were based and their international collaboration. This is a cross-sectional study conducted in six journals linked to learned clinical pharmacology societies/associations. For each journal, we started with the June-2025 issue and searched backward for articles meeting the selection criteria until 100 were identified or the January-2024 issue was reached. To calculate the credit by country, we used the complete fractionalized counting (CFC) method for assessing authors' contribution considering only the country of the authors included in the byline. CFC awards 1 credit among all authors and countries. A total of 503 articles were included in the analysis: 100 from four journals and 79 and 24 from the other two. Investigators from 66 countries from all continents contributed as authors; 46 countries provided lead authors. All but one were multi-authored articles; 9% were authored by international teams (range among the six journals: 16%-41%). Of the 503 credits, top countries were the United States (99.14), China (76.14), Japan (31.65), Denmark (28.69) and the Netherlands (27.29). The 17 EU countries obtained 151.86 credits (30.2% of the total). Among the top 25 countries, only five were not high-income countries. This exploratory analysis showed that with limited international collaboration, the authors of these studies worked mainly in wealthy countries, except for China.
    Keywords:  collaboration index; meta‐analysis; original investigation; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.70269
  9. J Surg Res. 2026 Jul 03. pii: S0022-4804(26)00390-2. [Epub ahead of print]326 39-44
    Article Processing Charges in General Surgery Journals: Implications for Equitable Publishing Access in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.
    Brenda Feres, Nadia Palte, Sofia Wagemaker Viana, Majok Deng Akok Deng, Nathalia Schettino Samad, Jessica L Buicko Lopez, Tanaz Vaghaiwalla.
       INTRODUCTION: Open access publishing promotes broad dissemination of scientific knowledge, enhancing transparency and accessibility. However, article processing charges (APCs) required by many journals create significant financial barriers, particularly for researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Prior studies across multiple disciplines have shown that APCs disproportionately restrict LMIC authors' ability to publish, perpetuating inequities in academic representation. The impact of APCs within general surgery remains underexplored. This study aims to quantify APCs in surgical publishing and evaluate the equity of fee structures for authors from LMICs.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of APCs in general surgery publishing was performed using journals identified via SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Journals were classified as fully open access (OA), with all articles freely accessible, or hybrid, subscription-based journals offering optional OA publication for a fee. Data on APC amounts, reductions for LMIC authors, publishing model, country of origin, and impact factor (IF) were extracted from publicly available sites. Countries of origin were categorized by World Bank income levels. IFs were compared between journals offering and not offering APC reductions for LMIC authors using the Mann-Whitney U test. All APCs were standardized to US dollars.
    RESULTS: A total of 40 general surgery journals were identified and included in the analysis with 90% (36/40) charging APCs. Among these, 67% (24/36) were hybrid journals charging fees only for OA publication, whereas 33% (12/36) were fully OA. Of the journals charging APCs, 42% (15/36) offered reduced fees for LMIC authors. The median full APC for journals offering discounts was $3720 (interquartile range [IQR]: $3090-$3950), compared with $2904.50 [IQR: $1618.50-$3895] for those without discounts. Most journals (82.5%, 33/40) were based in high-income countries (HICs); among these, 27.3% (9/33) were fully OA, 72.7% (24/33) were hybrid, and 45.4% (15/33) offered reduced APCs for LMIC authors. Journals based in LMICs comprised 17.5% (7/40) of the total. All LMIC journals were fully OA, with 57% (4/7) charging no APCs. The remaining 43% (3/7) did not offer reductions but had lower median APCs of $500 [IQR: $150-$1500] compared to high-income country journals, with a median of $3650 [IQR: $2500-$3950]. Mann-Whitney U testing showed that journals offering reduced APCs for LMICs had significantly higher IFs than those without discounts (P = 0.04).
    CONCLUSIONS: Most general surgery journals levy high APCs that can create barriers for authors and perpetuate inequities in academic representation. Although 42% of the journals offer reduced charges, APC amounts remain substantial. LMIC-based journals show fully open access publishing can be achieved at minimal or no cost. These findings offer actionable, data-driven insights for key stakeholders to implement broader APC reductions and promote equitable access to surgical publishing.
    Keywords:  APCs; Article processing charges; General surgery; LMICs; Open access; Publishing models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2026.06.016
  10. Arch Microbiol. 2026 Jun 29. pii: 463. [Epub ahead of print]208(9):
    Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023.
    Vinit Kumar, Pragya Anand, Yusuf Akhter.
      The integrity of tuberculosis research is critical for global public health, yet the phenomenon of article retractions in this field remains underexplored. This study examines patterns, reasons, and temporal trends of retracted tuberculosis-related research articles. A comprehensive analysis of retracted tuberculosis articles published between 1993 and 2023 was conducted using data from the Retraction Watch database and scholarly databases, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Journal characteristics, publisher distribution, retraction reasons, and keyword patterns were systematically analyzed. Concordance between official retraction notices and post-publication peer review discussions on PubPeer was assessed. The analysis revealed 150 retracted tuberculosis articles, with minimal retractions from 1993 to 2009 but substantial increases from 2010 onwards, peaking at 24 retractions in 2021. Retractions were distributed across all journal quartiles (Q1-Q4) and major publishers include Hindawi, Elsevier, Springer, and Taylor & Francis. The most frequent retraction reasons were unreliable results(n = 32), data concerns(n = 31), and journal investigations (n = 29). Most retraction notices cited 2-4 concurrent reasons from 60 unique categories, indicating complex integrity violations. Keyword analysis revealed predominance of molecular and genetic research, with "genetic," "cell," and "protein" as dominant terms. Animal models and drug development studies featured prominently. Comparison between Retraction Watch and PubPeer showed 80.3% concordance, though 15.2% of cases revealed discrepancies between official and community-identified concerns. Tuberculosis research retractions have increased substantially in recent years, affecting publications across quality tiers. The high-complexity nature of molecular tuberculosis research may contribute to vulnerability to data integrity issues. Post-publication peer review platforms provide valuable complementary oversight to traditional editorial processes.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Data integrity; Peer review; Research integrity; Retraction; Tuberculosis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-026-05009-y
  11. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2026 Jun 29. pii: ajnr.A9502. [Epub ahead of print]
    Gender Trends in Authorship Across Neuroradiology Journals (2016-2025).
    Daniela Renedo, Keervani Kandala, Seyedmehdi Payabvash, Dhairya A Lakhani, Dheeraj Gandhi, Lubdha M Shah, Achala Vagal, Pina C Sanelli, Ajay Malhotra.
       BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Trends in neuroradiology authorship are not well characterized. This study performed a bibliometric analysis to assess gender trends in first and last authorship across four neuroradiology journals from 2016 to 2025.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of four journals: American Journal of Neuroradiology, Neuroradiology, Journal of Neuroradiology and Journal of neuroimaging was performed for publications indexed in MEDLINE from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2025. A previously validated natural language processing pipeline was used to infer author gender and country. Cochran-Armitage test and logistic regression was used to assess temporal trends. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess association between first and last authorship and adjusted for publication year, journal, geographic differences and article type.
    RESULTS: In the 7,477 publications that met inclusion criteria, women accounted for 24.8% of first authors (1,858/7,477) and 17.3% of last authors (1,290/7,477). Female first authorship increased from 21.5% in 2016 to 31.6% in 2025 (P<0.001), and last authorship from 15.2% to 21.8% (P<0.001). Female authorship varied across journals, with first authorship varying from 33.7% (Journal of Neuroimaging) to 19.1% (AJNR). Publications with female last authors had 2.12-fold higher odds of having a female first author compared with publications with male last authors (95% CI, 1.97-2.28; P<0.001). Wide geographic variations were noted with female first authorship ranging from 12.2% (Japan) to 34.2% (Switzerland). Female first authorship from United States was 21.4% while last authorship was 17.6%.
    CONCLUSION: Female authorship in neuroradiology journals has increased over the past decade, but remains low, particularly in senior authorship positions. Continued efforts to provide mentorship and leadership opportunities will help sustain progress towards an equitable workforce.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A9502
  12. Kardiol Pol. 2026 ;84(6): 709
    Polish Heart Journal improves its standing: a record Impact Factor of 4.4.
    Anetta Undas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33963/v.phj.113398
  13. JTCVS Open. 2026 Jun;31 101725
    Authorship asymmetry at the Women in Thoracic Surgery Inaugural Annual Conference: Gender pairings and senior status disparity.
    Nicole Lin, Mariya Samoylova, Rebekah Boyd, Busra Cangut, Rajika Jindani, Marianna Papageorge, Tanisha Rajah, Sara Sakowitz, Madigan Stanley, Kaitlin Bevers, Laura DiChiacchio, Nimrat Grewal, Ammara A Watkins, Stephanie Worrell, Mara Antonoff.
       Objective: Representation of women in academic thoracic surgery has steadily increased over time. However, gender disparities continue to propagate at higher levels of career advancement, with women remaining drastically underrepresented among senior positions. Mentorship, particularly through scholarly collaboration, is a well-recognized mechanism to promote career advancement and support for trainees and junior faculty. We aimed to characterize authorship patterns from the Women in Thoracic Surgery Inaugural Annual Conference to gain insight into the current landscape of gender dynamics in academic mentorship.
    Methods: This was a retrospective study of all 98 abstracts submitted to the 2024 Women in Thoracic Surgery Inaugural Annual Conference. Abstracts were categorized by subspecialty/topic (thoracic, cardiac, congenital, workforce/other). We utilized Genderize.io, a validated algorithmic tool, to infer the gender of first and senior authors based on names, applying a 95% confidence threshold for correct gender assignment. The primary outcome was gender distribution and concordance between first and senior authors by gender.
    Results: Of the 98 submitted abstracts, 47 (48%) focused on thoracic surgery topics, 31 (32%) on adult cardiac surgery, 2 (2%) on congenital cardiac surgery, and 18 (18%) on workforce/other themes. Among these abstracts, 81 (83%) had female first authors, 16 (16%) had male first authors, and 1 could not be determined. Senior author roles were predominantly held by men, consisting of 55 men (56%) compared with 43 women (44%), which was statistically significant (P = .015). There was no statistically significant difference in gender concordance rates between women first authors (42% [34 out of 81]) and men first authors (44% [7 out of 16]) (P = .409). Thoracic abstracts had the highest rate of gender concordance (47% [22 out of 47]), followed by cardiac (19% [6 out of 31]) and congenital (0% [0 out of 2]) (P = .025).
    Conclusions: Although the 2024 Women in Thoracic Surgery Inaugural Annual Conference served as a platform that enabled strong representation of women first authors, senior authorship remains skewed toward men. This gender disparity in senior authorship highlights ongoing gaps in academic advancement pathways. These findings underscore the critical importance of intentional mentorship and sponsorship by senior faculty of all genders to support the equitable progression of women in academic thoracic surgery.
    Keywords:  authorship; disparities; gender; mentorship; sponsorship; women in thoracic surgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2026.101725
  14. EULAR Rheumatol Open. 2026 Mar;2(1): 42-45
    Gender disparity in rheumatology clinical guidelines: "rheum" for improvement?
    Hammad Ali, Connor R Buechler, Katelyn J Rypka, Alexandria N Lucas, Theodore Okoli, Nosheen Habib, Eskara Pervez, Lauren S Mohan, Paramarajan Piranavan, Kristine M Lohr.
       Objectives: Although women now represent nearly half of the rheumatology workforce, gender disparities persist in academic leadership roles, including authorship of clinical guidelines. We evaluated gender representation trends over 2 decades in guideline authorship by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR), to assess progress and ongoing inequities.
    Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all available ACR (2008-2022) and EULAR (2001-2022) clinical guidelines on their respective websites. Author gender was determined using publicly available pronouns, professional profiles, and Gender API as a last resort. Chi-square tests assessed differences in gender representation between the first and second halves of the study period.
    Results: We identified 93 EULAR and 33 ACR guidelines, comprising 2169 and 982 authorship positions, respectively. Women filled 36.7% of EULAR and 48% of ACR authorship positions. Female representation increased significantly over time for both EULAR (20% to 41%, P < .0001) and ACR (34% to 53%, P < .0001). Among first authors, women represented 54% for EULAR and 52% for ACR guidelines. ACR showed a significant rise in female first authorship (25% to 66%, P = .02), whereas EULAR's increase was not statistically significant (48% to 57%, P = .42).
    Conclusions: Although some disparities persist, there have been notable improvements in female first-author representation and overall inclusion in clinical guideline authorship. Given the female predominance among patients with rheumatic diseases, equitable representation among guideline authors is essential for inclusive and reflective clinical recommendations. Structural reforms and mentorship initiatives are necessary to ensure lasting equity in academic rheumatology.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ero.2025.12.004
  15. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2026 Jun 27. 35(2): 229-236
    Training Stage, Program Pedigree, Degree Pathway, and Research Productivity among United States Gastroenterology Fellows.
    Thomas Stirrat Stirrat, Tiffany Tian, Priyanka Solanky, Soham Apte, Sharikha Shahrin, Michael Flatley, Sridhar Thiru, Shriya Kakde, Priyanka Kanth.
       BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Publications influence selection into competitive gastroenterology fellowships, yet drivers of research productivity among current trainees are not well characterized. We evaluated whether training stage, institutional pedigree, and degree pathway are associated with research output among United States of America gastroenterology fellows.
    METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of fellows listed on publicly available rosters from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited adult gastroenterology fellowship programs (October-November 2025). PubMed-indexed publications were identified and categorized by training stage (medical school, residency, fellowship) and gastroenterology (GI)-specificity. Group comparisons used Mann-Whitney U tests. Poisson generalized estimating equation models clustered by program estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for total publication counts.
    RESULTS: Among 776 fellows from 125 programs, PGY6 fellows had more GI-specific publications than PGY4 fellows (median 3 vs 2) and greater fellowship-period output. Training in top-ranked environments was associated with higher total and GI-specific publication counts, with the largest differences observed for top 20 fellowship environments. In adjusted analyses, top-ranked training affiliations remained independently associated with higher total publication output. Women had approximately 15% lower total publication output than men (adjusted IRR ≈0.85). International medical graduates had higher publication counts than non-IMGs, whereas U.S. DO graduates had lower counts.
    CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity among United States of America gastroenterology fellows varies by training stage, training environment, and degree pathway, likely reflecting opportunity and infrastructure as well as individual aptitude.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15403/jgld-6786
  16. Res Sq. 2026 Jun 26. pii: rs.3.rs-9772079. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publication time valid prediction of citation risk outcomes in a bounded clinical specialty literature corpus.
    Sunny Chung, Charles Kahi, Siddharth Singh.
      Citation-prediction studies often estimate citation counts using information unavailable at publication. We evaluated whether citation-risk outcomes can be predicted using only publication-time information: metadata, references, author history, and text available on or before publication. We assembled 9,424 original-research articles published from 2017 to 2022 across seven clinical gastroenterology journals using OpenAlex and PubMed. The primary reference-observed cohort included 8,409 articles with a parsed reference list. The primary outcome was ≤ 3 citations within 2 years; secondary outcomes were 0 citations within 3 years, ≤ 3 citations within 3 years, and > 20 citations within 2 years. Models compared a nonsemantic citation/reference/context baseline, author-history variables, whole-document title/abstract embeddings, role-segmented source-text embeddings, and reference-context distributional features. Evaluation used two held-out publication-year folds with PR-AUC, or area under the precision-recall curve, F1, and precision among the top-ranked 10% of predictions. For the primary outcome, the nonsemantic baseline achieved PR-AUC 0.818, F1 0.722, and precision@10% 0.935. Adding whole-document embeddings improved performance to 0.828, 0.735, and 0.962, respectively. Structure-aware features did not improve the primary outcome but provided endpoint-specific gains for secondary outcomes. Author-history features showed standalone signal but did not improve the baseline. Pooled performance exceeded journal-local performance, indicating that citation-risk signal operated at the corpus level. These findings support publication-time-valid citation-risk modeling as a reproducible framework for studying evidence visibility within bounded literatures and motivate replication across other journal sets, specialties, and publication eras.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9772079/v1
  17. Eval Rev. 2026 Jul 01. 193841X261464677
    Brokerage, Gender, and Academic Performance in Interdisciplinary Co-Authorship Networks: A Study of Policy-Related Social Learning Publications.
    Elisa Espín-Gallardo, José Antonio Belso-Martínez, María José López-Sánchez.
      Brokers serve as key connectors linking academic researchers who might otherwise remain unconnected, to co-authorship networks. This study examines whether more complex interdisciplinary co-authorships yield greater scholarly impact than ties with authors from the same discipline, which are facilitated by cognitive similarity. It also tests the extent to which such collaborations influence the academic performance of female researchers. The study analyzed 594 authors and 271 papers in the field of social learning. Despite their complexity, regression analyses confirm the benefits of novel sources and combinations of interdisciplinary knowledge. The higher coordination and communication costs of interdisciplinary collaboration are offset by the potential of the new knowledge generated. Interdisciplinary collaboration is associated with higher performance among female scholars, contributing to increased recognition and reputation. This pattern suggests that collaboration strategies and institutional support should reduce coordination barriers in interdisciplinary co-authorship and facilitate women's access to high-impact brokerage opportunities.
    Keywords:  J16 economics of Gender; Z13 economic sociology; brokerage; co-authorship network; economic anthropology; gender; interdisciplinary; language; social and economic stratification; social learning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X261464677
  18. Front Psychol. 2026 ;17 1797110
    The value of interdisciplinary exposure: how university disciplinary diversity shapes research productivity of PhD students.
    Shijiao Cao.
       Purpose: PhD students at different universities face varying opportunities for interdisciplinary exposure, which may influence their academic performance. This study empirically investigates how university disciplinary diversity, which creates a context for the sharing and transfer of interdisciplinary knowledge, is associated with PhD student research productivity.
    Methods: This study proposes a novel measure of university-level disciplinary diversity and employs Poisson regression to examine its impact on PhD students' research productivity, controlling for a range of individual-, supervisor-, and institution-level factors, based on a sample of 1,418 accounting dissertations submitted to Chinese universities between 1999 and 2022.
    Results: While a linear model points to an aggregate negative effect of university disciplinary diversity on PhD students' research productivity, detailed analyses reveal a more nuanced inverted U-shaped relationship, suggesting that moderate levels of disciplinary diversity facilitate research productivity, and that the optimal level of diversity increases with a university's overall resources. Further analyses uncover that the negative effect is concentrated in universities with greater disciplinary imbalance or those that expand into too many irrelevant disciplines. Additionally, evidence indicates that PhD students at universities with higher disciplinary diversity are more likely to engage in interdisciplinary research and produce work with greater impact.
    Discussion: This study sheds new light on how interdisciplinary exposure is associated with PhD students' research productivity and offers practical implications for doctoral training. Engaging with interdisciplinary knowledge may help students identify innovative research questions and produce novel insights, underscoring the value of maintaining adequate disciplinary diversity at the university level.
    Keywords:  PhD student; disciplinary diversity; interdisciplinary exposure; interdisciplinary research; research productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1797110
  19. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2026 Aug;11(8): 102071
    Integrity in Radiation Oncology Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Studies, Retraction Notices, and Their Impact on the Field.
    Philip Heesen, Maksym Fritsak, Lena Kretzschmar, Astrid Heusel, Olga Ciobanu-Caraus, Maiwand Ahmadsei, Maximilian Thormann, Felix Ehret, Nicolaus Andratschke, Daniel Zips, Matthias Guckenberger, Siyer Rohani, Sebastian M Christ.
       Purpose: Retractions in the scientific literature undermine research integrity and can have lasting effects on clinical and academic practices. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze retracted publications in the recent radiation oncology literature and to identify trends in study characteristics, reasons for retraction, and postretraction citation patterns.
    Methods and Materials: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Retracted studies in radiation oncology were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Retraction Watch, from May 1, 2017, to September 27, 2024, and June 16, 2025, respectively. Studies were included if they had a publicly available retraction notice. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics, retraction reasons, and postretraction citation patterns. Descriptive statistics were used for data synthesis.
    Results: A total of 108 retracted studies were identified and analyzed. Most retracted studies were laboratory/experimental studies (39.8%). Median impact factor of retracted studies was 2.4 (IQR, 1.8-3.5). The primary reason for retraction was misconduct (77.8%), followed by methodological errors (13.9%) and authorship issues (5.6%). Retraction notices were issued primarily by publishers (50.0%). Most retracted articles (93.5%) were marked with a watermark, and retractions were indexed in PubMed in all cases. Median time from publication to retraction was 1.6 years (IQR, 1.0-3.2 years). Median number of citations after retraction was 1 (IQR, 0-3).
    Conclusions: This study found that retractions in radiation oncology remain generally rather rare events. However, prevalence of misconduct-related retractions in radiation oncology is high, and citations may persist after retraction. These findings emphasize the need for further enhanced oversight and clearer retraction policies to foster high-quality and sound research practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2026.102071
  20. Nature. 2026 Jul 01.
    Paper mill cancer studies get double the number of citations as genuine papers.
    Mohana Basu.
      
    Keywords:  Cancer; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01908-8
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒08‒03 at 10:04.