bims-evares 2025-11-30 papers

bims-evares

Biomed News

on Evaluation of research

Issue of 2025–11–30
sixteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Free Neuropathology: A bibliometric impact analysis.
The rising bibliometric profile of global neurosurgery.
Assessing the Research Impact of U.S. Academic Uveitis Specialists Using the Relative Citation Ratio.
Evaluating Research Productivity Trends Among Orthopaedic Adult Reconstruction Fellowship Applicants: A Bibliometric Study.
Research productivity and trends in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms in the early 21st century: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.
[Evolution of women's representation in scientific authorship: a 20-year analysis of the Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia].
Using social media to disseminate hand surgery research boosts long-term citations.
Bibliometric analysis of atrial fibrillation and frailty research based on CiteSpace and VOSviewer.
Radiation therapist research capacity and output: a multicentre retrospective study of authorship, collaboration, and institutional strategies (2013-2022).
Pre-residency research productivity and its impact on admission to top-tier U.S. residency programs: a meta-analysis across specialties in surgical education.
The influence of publication ranking specifications on publication strategy and academic careers in business administration.
New Quantitative Cost-Impact Effectiveness Indexes to Assist in Publication Decisions by Researchers in the Open Access Era.
Mapping the Scaffolding of Metacognition and Learning by AI Tools in STEM Classrooms: A Bibliometric-Systematic Review Approach (2005-2025).
The use of "trend" statements in platelet-rich plasma literature.
Examining gender and ethnic disparities in scientific authorship to promote a culture of equity, diversity and inclusion at a university school of public health.
Mediating Similarity: An Information-Theoretic Principle of Reference Behavior.

Free Neuropathol. 2025 ;6 22

Free Neuropathology: A bibliometric impact analysis.

Georg Haase, Marta Margeta, Ralf Mersmann, Werner Paulus.



Keywords:  Bibliometry; Citation index; Google Scholar; Impact factor; Scopus

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17879/freeneuropathology-2025-9124
J Clin Neurosci. 2025 Nov 25. pii: S0967-5868(25)00698-8. [Epub ahead of print]143 111725

The rising bibliometric profile of global neurosurgery.

Emmanuel O Mensah, Neel H Mehta, Zsombor T Gal, Niels Pacheco-Barrios, Radzi Hamzah, Gail Rosseau, Dilan Ellegala, Gabrielle Luiselli, Saksham Gupta, Kee B Park.

   OBJECTIVE: The rising interest in global neurosurgery (GNS) is reflected in the apparent rise in related research output. This study aims to examine bibliometric trends related to the research subdiscipline of GNS within three leading neurosurgery journals, Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS), Neurosurgery, and World Neurosurgery.
METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis on all GNS-related articles from the three journals published in the Web of Science database from 2005 to April 2024. Publication type, authorship demographics, citation counts, and research themes were extracted, with quantitative analyses performed using STATA.
RESULTS: Our analysis included 569 articles, demonstrating a marked increase in publications over time, from 0.8 % in 2010-2014 to 1.1 % in 2015-2019 (p < 0.01), and 2.1 % in 2020-2024 (p < 0.001). The majority were published in World Neurosurgery (85.7 %), followed by Neurosurgery (7.6 %), and JNS (6.7 %). Peak publication years were 2024, 2022, and 2021. Authorship trends revealed that 52.4 % of first authors and 53.6 % of senior authors were from high-income countries (HICs), while 47.6 % of the articles resulted from mixed low-to-middle-income country (LMIC)-HIC collaborations. Notably, mixed collaborations with equitable authorship roles increased, highlighting a trend towards shared research leadership. Research themes were diverse, with a significant focus on healthcare systems and capacity building (36.3 %), health advocacy (16.1 %), and clinical outcomes and guideline (15.7 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Bibliometric trends indicate the growing recognition and development of GNS, evidenced by increasing publication rates, diverse research themes, and significant collaborative efforts. However, challenges in equitable representation and specialty coverage remain. Continued support for LMIC researchers and global collaboration is essential to address systemic and clinical issues, ultimately advancing GNS and health equity.

Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Global neurosurgery; LMICs; Publication disparities; Research trends

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111725
Am J Ophthalmol. 2025 Nov 21. pii: S0002-9394(25)00624-5. [Epub ahead of print]

Assessing the Research Impact of U.S. Academic Uveitis Specialists Using the Relative Citation Ratio.

Jovany J Franco, Jeremy N Shapiro, Daniel Saukkonen, David P Azer, Ashley K Roth, Shilpa Kodati.

   PURPOSE: To assess the research productivity and impact of U.S. academic uveitis specialists using the relative citation ratio (RCR).
DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.
METHODS: A list of U.S. academic ophthalmology departments was obtained using the FREIDA Residency and Fellowship Database (American Medical Association). Department websites were reviewed to identify all affiliated fellowship-trained uveitis specialists. Publication count, mean RCR (m-RCR), and weighted RCR (w-RCR) for each specialist were obtained from iCite (National Institutes of Health). Only original research articles were included. Data were compared by gender, PhD completion, academic rank, and year of residency graduation.
RESULTS: A total of 180 uveitis specialists associated with 88 academic ophthalmology departments were identified. Across this group, median publication count was 25.00 (interquartile range [IQR] = 9.00-56.75), median m-RCR was 1.28 (IQR = 0.83-1.94), and median w-RCR was 27.62 (IQR = 7.43-84.88), with significant variation by residency completion year (p <0.001) and academic rank (p <0.001). Notably, no significant differences in these measures were observed across gender or PhD acquisition.
CONCLUSION: As a group, the median m-RCR of U.S. academic uveitis specialists exceeds the standardized RCR value of 1, albeit with significant variability across individuals. Our results serve as important benchmark data which can be used for improved assessment of the relative scholarly impact of academic uveitis specialists.

Keywords:  academic achievement; bibliometrics; h-index; relative citation ratio; research impact; uveitis

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.11.029
Arthroplast Today. 2025 Dec;36 101903

Evaluating Research Productivity Trends Among Orthopaedic Adult Reconstruction Fellowship Applicants: A Bibliometric Study.

Emily Tufford, Andrew H Kim, Peter F Monahan, Peter Tortora, Luke B Elias, Andrew B Harris, Gregory J Kirchner, Mark W Mason.

   Background: The research benchmarks necessary for a successful adult reconstruction fellowship match remain unclear. This study aimed to characterize and identify trends in the academic profiles of adult reconstruction fellows in the United States.
Methods: The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons fellowship directory was used to identify U.S. adult reconstruction fellowships programs that listed fellows graduating from 2019 to 2023. For each fellow, total number of publications, authorship position, number of publications with an adult reconstruction focus, and number of citations were collected using Scopus. Only publications accepted or published before the fellow's match year were compiled. Research productivity was compared across medical degree, sex, fellowship year, and residency program geographic region.
Results: A total of 247 fellows from 46 programs were identified. Fellows published an average of 5.5 ± 9.7 publications during residency, with 66.6 ± 190.4 citations. There was no significant change in research productivity from 2019 to 2023. Average number of publications per fellow was significantly greater for fellows with an MD degree compared with a DO degree (5.8 ± 10.0 vs 2.1 ± 4.2; P < .05). Fellows who completed residency in the northeast had the highest average number of publications per fellow (9.9 ± 16.3) and average number of first author publications per fellow (2.6 ± 4.0) among all regions.
Conclusions: There was no change in research output among adult reconstruction fellows graduating from 2019 to 2023, suggesting that research may not be driving the increased competitiveness of adult reconstruction fellowships.

Keywords:  Adult reconstruction; Fellowship; H-index; Publications; Research productivity

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2025.101903
Discov Oncol. 2025 Nov 24.

Research productivity and trends in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms in the early 21st century: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.

Xinyu Chen, Xuanwei Huang, Xinting Lv.

  Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) are rare but increasingly recognized tumors with heterogeneous biological behavior and diverse management strategies. This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research on gNENs from 2000 to 2025, aiming to map research productivity, influential contributors, and emerging trends. A total of 452 publications were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection after rigorous screening. The annual number of publications demonstrated a significant quadratic growth pattern, reflecting the expanding academic interest in this field. China and the United States emerged as the most active contributors, with China leading in publication volume and the United States achieving the highest citation impact. At the institutional level, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and the University of Liverpool were particularly influential. Core authors, including Sara Massironi, Ping Li, D. Mark Pritchard, and Francesco Panzuto, formed prominent research clusters, while key journals such as Gastric Cancer and World Journal of Gastroenterology were identified as central publication outlets. Reference and keyword analyses revealed major research hotspots, including epidemiology, clinical management, treatment strategies, and subtype-specific approaches to gastric neuroendocrine tumors and carcinomas. Emerging themes emphasize personalized management, the integration of multicenter real-world data, and the development of novel therapeutic strategies, particularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy. This study delineates the scientific landscape of gNEN research, providing valuable guidance for advancing clinical practice and fostering further international collaboration.

Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Clinical management; Gastric neuroendocrine Neoplasms(gNENs); Scientific landscape

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-025-04161-z
G Ital Cardiol (Rome). 2025 Dec;26(12): 922-929

[Evolution of women's representation in scientific authorship: a 20-year analysis of the Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia].

Stefania Angela Di Fusco, Chiara Alaimo, Andrea Matteucci, Chiara Bernelli, Furio Colivicchi.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decades the proportion of women working in cardiology has progressively increased. This study aims to evaluate overtime changes in women's contribution to authorship in articles published in the Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia (GIC).
METHODS: We collected data on article authorship from 2004 to 2024. Our objective was to assess temporal trends in women's authorship, including the number of articles with a woman as first or last author. Further analyses focused on women representation in editorial bodies of GIC.
RESULTS: In the time interval analyzed, a significant increase was observed in the number of total authors per year (Pearson r=0.798, p<0.001), and the number of female authors per year (Pearson r=0.758, p<0.001). The percentage of female authors showed a non-significant increasing trend over time (Pearson r=0.313, p=0.166). However, the percentage of articles with a female first author (Pearson r=0.569, p=0.007) and last author (Pearson r=0.603, p=0.004) increased significantly. Female representation on the GIC editorial board increased over time, but leadership roles were held almost exclusively by men.
CONCLUSIONS: Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in women's authorship in the GIC. Nevertheless, this increase does not reflect their growing representation in the cardiology field. Greater efforts are needed to enhance women's involvement in scientific publishing to promote diversity and improve scientific research quality.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1714/4599.46059
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2025 Nov 24. 17531934251385904

Using social media to disseminate hand surgery research boosts long-term citations.

Ryo Yoshimura, Michael C Grant, Ryckie G Wade.

   INTRODUCTION: Social media (SoMe) is increasingly used for research promotion and dissemination. Classic bibliometrics measure long-term measures of research impact, such as citation counts. Altmetrics are newer real-time measures of activity on multiple SoMe platforms (e.g. X, Facebook) capturing the consumption, reach and impact of scientific outputs. Promotion via SoMe has short-term positive impacts on citations but the long-term impact remains unknown.
METHODS: Altmetrics and citation rates were collected from Altmetric Explorer 6 years post-publication for 624 articles published in 2017 across six hand surgery journals (Journal of Hand Surgery, Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume, Journal of Hand Surgery: Asian-Pacific Volume, Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Techniques in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery and HAND). Negative binomial regression was used to estimate the relationships between citation counts and predictor variables. Incident rate ratios were reported as 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: SoMe mentions had a long-term positive impact on citations, whereby mentions in 2017 were independently associated with a 2% higher citation rate 6 years later (CI 1-3%). Evidence synthesis studies had at least eight more citations than other types of articles (p < 0.001), and articles published in the Journal of Hand Surgery had more citations than those in other hand surgery journals (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Using SoMe to advertise hand surgery literature is associated with long-term gains in citations. Continued research into the impact of SoMe on bibliometrics will help to ensure the academic ecosphere is responsive to evolving digital trends.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (Cross-sectional study).

Keywords:  Altmetrics; Citations; Hand surgery; SoMe; Social media

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934251385904
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Nov 21. 104(47): e46118

Bibliometric analysis of atrial fibrillation and frailty research based on CiteSpace and VOSviewer.

Wei Pan, Yuanfeng Wu, Linqi Liu, Min Yu, Zeliang Chen.

   BACKGROUND: Research on atrial fibrillation (AF) and frailty has increasingly attracted scholarly and clinical attention in recent years, driven by the need to understand their complex interactions and improve care for vulnerable populations. This study aims to systematically analyze the evolving landscape of AF (frailty research).
METHODS: We extracted data from the Web of Science Core Collection, identifying 687 relevant articles published between 2001 and 2024. Employing bibliometric tools (VOSviewer and CiteSpace), we mapped knowledge networks, analyzing publication trends, contributor geography (46 countries/regions), institutional involvement (1540 institutions), and researcher collaboration (4096 researchers).
RESULTS: Publication Trends: Growth Trajectory: Consistent growth in AF-frailty (related publications over the 2001 to 2024 period. Geographic & Institutional Contributions: The United States led in research output, with global participation across 46 countries/regions and 1540 institutions).
CONCLUSIONS: AF (frailty research has matured into a multidisciplinary field with expanding global contributions). Future advancements require intensified multidisciplinary collaboration and integration of precision medicine frameworks. Prioritizing these will enable optimized, personalized care for frail AF patients, addressing unmet clinical needs in this high-risk population.

Keywords:  atrial fibrillation; bibliometrics; frailty; visualization

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000046118
Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2025 Dec;36 100351

Radiation therapist research capacity and output: a multicentre retrospective study of authorship, collaboration, and institutional strategies (2013-2022).

Caroline Marr, Tara Rosewall, Helen A McNair, Maddalena M G Rossi, Yat Tsang.

   Purpose: Radiation Therapist (RTT) research culture is essential for driving innovation and informing evidence-based practice. This study aimed to assess RTT research output and institutional capacity-building initiatives across international clinical academic cancer centres.
Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of RTT research activities and capacity-building initiatives from 2013 to 2022 at three centres located in Canada (CA), the Netherlands (NL) and the United Kingdom (UK). Data was collected on research output by identifying all RTT author publications (first, second, or senior author). Institutional capacity-building initiatives were captured from each centre and described using full-time equivalents (FTEs). A qualitative analysis was conducted on all RTT publications to identify common research topics.
Results: Over the 10 years, the total number of RTT-authored publications was 445 across the centres (CA:291; UK:79; NL:75). RTTs as first authors ranged from 14.7 % to 44.3 % and RTTs as senior authors ranged from 0 % to 27.8 % of publications. Centres with increasing FTEs demonstrated increasing research productivity, with publications changing from 21 to 34 in CA and from 3 to 15 in the UK centre. Multidisciplinary collaboration was common among all centres. Prominent RTT research themes included technological applications, RTT professional development and quality assurance, clinical outcomes, dosimetry, and patient care. Common strategies to build research capacity included educational initiatives, the creation of dedicated research roles, and promoting research dissemination.
Conclusion: This study highlighted the contributions of RTTs to radiation oncology research and how a comprehensive approach to building research capacity results in high RTT research output and collaboration.

Keywords:  Education; Evidence-based practice; Radiation therapists; Radiotherapy; Research

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2025.100351
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Nov 26.

Pre-residency research productivity and its impact on admission to top-tier U.S. residency programs: a meta-analysis across specialties in surgical education.

Xiaohong Lyu, Yan Lin, Feng Mao, Changjun Wang, Qiang Sun, Yidong Zhou.

   BACKGROUND: Pre-residency research productivity is widely regarded as a critical factor for medical students aspiring to competitive residency programs. However, its specific impact on admission to top-tier programs remains uncertain.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between pre-residency research productivity-including total publications, first-author publications, H-index, and specialty-specific output-and admission into high-reputation or high-research ranking residency programs. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (up to May 2025) identified eight studies involving 3,477 U.S. medical students across seven specialties.
RESULTS: Total publication volume (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.21-2.74, p < 0.01) and H-index (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.57-2.37, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with admission into high-reputation programs. Similar trends were observed for high research ranking programs, with total publications (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.42-2.36, p < 0.001) and H-index (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.15-3.20, p = 0.01) showing robust correlations. In contrast, first-author publications demonstrated non-significant associations with both reputation (OR = 4.83, 95% CI: 0.37-63.26, p = 0.23) and research rankings (OR = 4.27, 95% CI: 0.74-24.51, p = 0.10).
CONCLUSION: Pre-residency research productivity may confer a measurable advantage for admission into top-tier U.S. residency programs. These findings underscore the strategic value of sustained and impactful scholarly contributions, while challenging the traditional emphasis on first-author publications.

Keywords:  H-index; Meta-analysis; Research productivity; Residency match; Scholarly productivity

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-08311-3
PLoS One. 2025 ;20(11): e0336492

The influence of publication ranking specifications on publication strategy and academic careers in business administration.

Gerhard Reichmann, Christian Schlögl, Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann.

This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009-2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings-favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals-is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336492
bioRxiv. 2025 Oct 14. pii: 2025.10.10.681750. [Epub ahead of print]

New Quantitative Cost-Impact Effectiveness Indexes to Assist in Publication Decisions by Researchers in the Open Access Era.

Julia C Hardy, Christine Kim Vu, Dong Wang.

Scientific publications have become the backbone of scientific communication since their foundation in 1665. The three main models for publishing are Traditional (or subscription-based), Open Access (OA), and Hybrid. As of July 1, 2025, the NIH requires that Author Accepted Manuscripts resulting from NIH-funded research be immediately publicly available. To comply with this new requirement, authors may be forced to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) to publish Open Access, ranging from ~$2000 to ~$13,000 per article. With this change to the scientific publishing landscape, publishing costs shift from subscribers to authors causing authors to re-evaluate how they choose which journal to publish in. Here we analyze 75 popular biomedical journals to evaluate the publishing costs compared to the scientific impact (i.e. Impact Factor, CiteScore, SNIP) illustrated by three different Cost-Impact Effectiveness (CIE) metrics (APC/IF, APC/CS and APC/SNIP). To complement the new open access policy, our goal is to provide a resource to help the scientific community evaluate the impact-based cost effectiveness of different Open Access options during their journal selection process.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.10.10.681750
J Intell. 2025 Nov 15. pii: 148. [Epub ahead of print]13(11):

Mapping the Scaffolding of Metacognition and Learning by AI Tools in STEM Classrooms: A Bibliometric-Systematic Review Approach (2005-2025).

Maria Tsakeni, Stephen C Nwafor, Moeketsi Mosia, Felix O Egara.

  This study comprehensively analyses how AI tools scaffold and share metacognitive processes, thereby facilitating students' learning in STEM classrooms through a mixed-method research synthesis combining bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, the study draws on 135 peer-reviewed articles published between 2005 and 2025 to map publication trends, author and journal productivity, keyword patterns, and theoretical frameworks. Data were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science using structured Boolean searches and analysed using Biblioshiny and VOSviewer. Guided by PRISMA 2020 protocols, 24 studies were selected for in-depth qualitative review. Findings show that while most research remains grounded in human-centred conceptualisations of metacognition, there are emerging indications of posthumanist framings, where AI systems are positioned as co-regulators of learning. Tools like learning analytics, intelligent tutoring systems, and generative AI platforms have shifted the discourse from individual reflection to system-level regulation and distributed cognition. The study is anchored in Flavell's theory of metacognition, General Systems Theory, and posthumanist perspectives to interpret this evolution. Educational implications highlight the need to reconceptualise pedagogical roles, integrate AI literacy in teacher preparation, and prioritise ethical, reflective AI design. The review provides a structured synthesis of theoretical, empirical, and conceptual trends, offering insights into how human-machine collaboration is reshaping learning by scaffolding and co-regulating students' metacognitive development in STEM education.

Keywords:  STEM education; artificial intelligence; educational technology; intelligent tutoring systems; metacognition; posthumanism

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13110148
PM R. 2025 Nov 26.

The use of "trend" statements in platelet-rich plasma literature.

Connor G Richmond, Nirmal Maxwell, Madison Q Burns, GianMarco Douglas, Dennis Bourbeau, Allison N Schroeder.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often rely on significant results to inform clinical decisions, with the p value being a common tool to identify statistically significant data. Using trend statements to describe nonstatistically significant results can lead readers to draw misleading conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and context of trend statements in relation to non-significant findings in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) literature.
METHODS: Original research articles examining the use of PRP to treat osteoarthritis or tendinopathy, published between January 2014 and December 2024, were searched on PubMed. Instances where nonstatistically significant results were labeled as a "trend" or included "trend-related statements" were examined to evaluate their use and context within the articles.
RESULTS: A total of 418 articles were analyzed. Trend statements were found in 65 articles (15.6%) to describe nonsignificant data. Among these, 43 articles (66.2%) reported an associated p value, and 22 (33.8%) did not. Forty-seven (72.3%) of the trend statements made were supportive of PRP. Additionally, 40 articles (61.5%) used trend statements for multiple findings, whereas 25 (38.5%) referred to a single finding. The presence or absence of a p value significantly predicted whether a trend statement was made (p < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in average journal impact factors between articles that did or did not contain trend statements, as both groups had an average impact factor of 2.3.
CONCLUSION: Trend statements are frequently used to characterize nonstatistically significant findings in the PRP literature, which may lead readers to draw incorrect statistical conclusions. Many trend statements were employed to describe multiple findings, often without an associated p value or with a p > .2.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.70056
Proc Biol Sci. 2025 Nov;292(2059): 20250313

Examining gender and ethnic disparities in scientific authorship to promote a culture of equity, diversity and inclusion at a university school of public health.

Paula Christen, Julia Michalow, Tristan Naidoo, Hillary Topazian, Sabine L van Elsland, Abeer M Arif, Marc Baguelin, Gemma Clunie, Sarah Essilfie-Quaye, Daniela Fecht, Tini Garske, Sondus Hassounah, Jenny Husbands, Wendy Kwok, Sequoia Leuba, Clare McCormack, Kate M Mitchell, Matteo Pianella, Michael Pickles, Shazia-Pesantez Ruybal, Nora Schmit, Chinedu Udeh-Momoh, Anne Cori, Isobel Blake, Lucy C Okell.

  In public health research, diverse perspectives are vital to identify biases that homogenous teams might miss. Since publication metrics influence career progression, we investigated publication rate disparities within a School of Public Health. We analysed 18 322 peer-reviewed publications by 513 affiliated researchers between 2014 and 2023 using multivariable regression models and network analysis to assess the impact of gender, ethnicity, job level and centrality in the School's research network on publication rates. We found a persistent gender gap in publication rates across job levels and ethnicities, with men publishing more than women (incidence rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-1.46). This disparity was present from early career levels and amplified in senior roles, where men were over-represented (71.2% of men at Professor level). Unadjusted analyses indicated higher publication rates for white researchers (median of one publication more per person per year). The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased publication rates for both genders, but the gender gap persisted, with men publishing 1.27 (95% CI: 1.10-1.46) times more than women in 2020/2021. This study underscores the need to identify and address root causes of these disparities to foster an inclusive research environment where diverse contributions are recognized and valued.

Keywords:  equity, diversity and inclusion; research culture; research disparities

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0313
Entropy (Basel). 2025 Oct 31. pii: 1124. [Epub ahead of print]27(11):

Mediating Similarity: An Information-Theoretic Principle of Reference Behavior.

Qun Zhao, Menghui Yang, Guojian Xian, Jieying Bi, Tan Sun.

  While information theory is widely used to quantify knowledge combinations, the fundamental principles guiding reference selection in science remain largely unexplored. This study analyzes a large-scale journal citation network to introduce and empirically validate a principle we term "Mediating Similarity". We posit that a journal's reference list acts as a strategic cognitive bridge, creating a more efficient informational path from its specific research identity to the broader scientific landscape. Using information-theoretic measures and computational experiments, we tested this principle and its underlying mechanisms. Our findings provide robust, multi-level evidence. First, we confirm the universality of the principle, showing that the mediated path through references is consistently more efficient than the direct path for thousands of journals. Second, perturbation experiments reveal a dual mechanism guiding reference selection: real-world reference portfolios are not merely collections of relevant works, but are synergistically optimal combinations that vastly outperform randomly assembled alternatives. This global optimization, however, operates as a robust "satisficing" strategy, balancing the search for an ideal cognitive path with the practical constraints of scientific discovery. Collectively, these findings reframe reference behavior as a strategic process of navigating a cognitive energy landscape, where journals selectively curate references to enhance their integrative capacity and innovative potential.

Keywords:  Kullback-Leibler divergence; information theory; mediating similarity; reference behavior; scientometrics

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/e27111124