bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–05–10
twelve papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Scientific Publications Related to Low-Flow Anesthesia.
  2. Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of allergy and immunology journals.
  3. Letter to the Editor: Citations of Retracted Publications Should Be Discounted From One's Bibliometric Indicator.
  4. Scholarly Productivity in U.S. Academic Musculoskeletal Radiology Faculty: Clinical Track Versus Tenure/Research Track Analysis.
  5. Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding "A bibliometric analysis of investigative genetic genealogy in academic literature: Trends, networks, and emerging themes".
  6. Exploring individual biases in BCI research and users: Does gender matter?
  7. Gender equity in rheumatology research: global analysis of authors.
  8. Submitted Works in Plastic Surgery Residency Applications: Longitudinal Trends and Publication Outcomes.
  9. Social media promotion improves job market outcomes.
  10. Early-career researchers do more 'disruptive' science than veterans.
  11. A scoping review of guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.
  12. Publication bias and time to the publication of randomised trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional study.
  1. Healthcare (Basel). 2026 Apr 13. pii: 1020. [Epub ahead of print]14(8):
    Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Scientific Publications Related to Low-Flow Anesthesia.
    İsmet Çopur, Hüseyin Özçınar, Turan Evran.
      Background: This study aims to conduct an analysis of the literature on low-flow anesthesia published over the past 30 years, identifying the most productive countries, institutions, authors, and journals; uncovering the intellectual structure of the field through the most influential publications, authors, and journals; and visualizing thematic clusters and evolving research trends based on keyword analyses. Methods: This retrospective bibliometric study analyzed scientific publications on low-flow anesthesia indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) between 1993 and 2024. Articles were classified by countries, institutions, journals, and researchers, and the number of studies and citations were determined. Co-citation analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis were performed to map thematic clusters and intellectual structures. Results: A total of 260 articles met the inclusion criteria. The United States led with 39 publications, followed by Turkey (33) and Japan (27). The most productive institution was Northwestern University (USA), and the most published journal was Anesthesia & Analgesia. The most prolific authors were André M. De Wolf and Jan F. A. Hendrickx, while co-citation analysis identified Edmund I. Eger II and Hiromichi Bito as the most influential authors based on centrality metrics. MDS and trend topic analyses revealed prominent keywords including "closed loop", "remifentanil", "sevoflurane", "bispectral index", "EEG analysis", "pharmacokinetics", "absorbent", "performance", and "FGF" (fresh gas flow). Conclusions: The United States leads the field of low-flow anesthesia in both publication count and citations. Trending terms such as "closed loop," "performance," "remifentanil," "sevoflurane," "bispectral index," "EEG analysis," "FGF," and "absorbent" reflect the current research directions in this field.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; closed system anesthesia; environmental impact in anesthesia; low-flow anesthesia; sustainable anesthesia practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14081020
  2. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2026 May 04.
    Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of allergy and immunology journals.
    Ranya Al Jumaily, Natalie DeGurse, M Elise Graham, Samira Jeimy.
       BACKGROUND: Editorial boards shape academic publishing, yet disparities in gender and geographic representation persist across disciplines. To date, these disparities have not been comprehensively investigated in Allergy and Immunology journals.
    OBJECTIVE: To examine gender and geographic representation among editorial board members of Allergy and Immunology journals, highlighting disparities and identifying areas for improvement.
    METHODS: Allergy and Immunology journals were identified using the Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database. Editorial board member data, including names, roles, and locations, were collected from journal websites. Predicted gender was determined using the genderize.io tool. Pearson correlations assessed relationships between journal metrics and editorial board characteristics.
    RESULTS: A total of 36 journals comprising 1,546 editorial board members were analyzed. Women accounted for 515/1,546 (33.3%) of all editorial board members and were underrepresented in leadership roles. Specifically, only 11/47 (23.4%) of editors-in-chief and 90/244 (36.9%) of deputy/associate editors were women. Geographically, 1,318/1,546 (85.3%) of editorial board members were based in developed countries, with the United States contributing the highest proportion (348/1,546, 22.5%). Women editors constituted 423/1,318 (32.1%) of board members in developed countries and 92/228 (40.4%) in developing countries. Representation of non-binary and transgender identities could not be reliably determined using the available data.
    CONCLUSIONS: Gender and geographic disparities are prevalent in Allergy and Immunology journal editorial boards, with significant underrepresentation of women, particularly in leadership roles, and a concentration of editors in developed countries. Addressing these disparities is essential to fostering inclusivity and equity in academic publishing.
    Keywords:  Allergy; Gender; Immunology; Publications; Research; Women in medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-026-01034-0
  3. J Korean Med Sci. 2026 May 04. 41(17): e223
    Letter to the Editor: Citations of Retracted Publications Should Be Discounted From One's Bibliometric Indicator.
    Bor Luen Tang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2026.41.e223
  4. Acad Radiol. 2026 May 06. pii: S1076-6332(26)00294-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Scholarly Productivity in U.S. Academic Musculoskeletal Radiology Faculty: Clinical Track Versus Tenure/Research Track Analysis.
    Nasim Eshraghi, Mahla Radmard, David M Yousem, Christine Rehwald, Majid Chalian.
       RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In U.S. academic radiology, clinical and tenure/research tracks can carry different expectations for scholarship. Accordingly, this study compared bibliometric productivity between clinical-track and tenure/research-track U.S. academic musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology faculty across ranks.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric study of U.S. academic MSK radiology faculty was conducted using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) public program directory and an MSK fellowship program list. Academic rank (assistant, associate, or full professor) and career track were assigned from publicly available institutional titles. Academic age was defined as years from first indexed publication to 2025.
    RESULTS: Among 610 faculty, 259 (42.5%) were clinical track and 351 (57.5%) tenure/research. Clinical-track assistant professors had higher publications, citations, and h-index than tenure/research assistant professors (all p < 0.01). No significant track differences were observed among associate professors (all p > 0.05). Tenure/research full professors had higher publication counts than clinical-track full professors (p = 0.004), with a borderline higher h-index (p = 0.056). Across all ranks combined, rank-adjusted differences in all metrics were not statistically significant and were mostly unchanged after accounting for academic age. Variance decomposition showed that academic age and rank accounted for nearly all explained variability in bibliometric measures (∼97-99%), whereas track and sex contributed minimally.
    CONCLUSION: Track-related differences in bibliometric productivity were rank-dependent, with higher metrics among clinical-track assistant professors and higher publication counts among tenure/research-track full professors. Overall, academic age and rank accounted for most variability in bibliometric measures.
    Keywords:  Academic rank; Bibliometrics; Faculty track; Musculoskeletal radiology; Scholarly productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.04.023
  5. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2026 Jun;12 100678
    Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding "A bibliometric analysis of investigative genetic genealogy in academic literature: Trends, networks, and emerging themes".
    Alessandro Stasi, Alfonso Pellegrino.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2026.100678
  6. Front Hum Neurosci. 2025 ;19 1695370
    Exploring individual biases in BCI research and users: Does gender matter?
    Cornelia Herbert, Viviana Ramos Acuna, Raphael R K Kneipp, Nina I Kapfer.
       Objective: Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) is an interdisciplinary research field characterized by rapid technological advances and collaborative efforts to develop user-friendly, adaptive devices that enable healthy and non-responsive users to communicate and interact with their environment through brain signals elicited by specific instructions or tasks. However, research often shows gender bias, especially in scientific disciplines with strong technological, medical, or social foundations. Gender biases have been found among scientists conducting and publishing research. They may also exist among examiners and study participants.
    Research question and methods: This study investigates whether gender biases are present in BCI research, particularly in the distribution of women and men across editorial boards and authorship of studies focusing on psychological human factors that influence BCI performance and usability. We systematically analyzed the gender distribution in neuroscientific journals that accept BCI research or have a strong focus on BCI, reviewed their editorial boards, analyzed BCI publications -including those related to psychological human factors-and examined gender biases among study participants. Additionally, we reviewed EEG studies investigating sex- or gender-related differences in EEG signals relevant to BCI research.
    Results: We observed significant differences in the representation of women and men among editorial board members and BCI authors, including first-, co-, and last-authorship. Similarly, there were differences in the gender distribution of participants in BCI studies. Moreover, the literature review suggests potential differences in brain signals between women and men within the studied samples. The impact of these differences on performance in BCIs, such as motor-imagery SMR-BCIs, SSVEP-BCIs, and P300-BCIs, as well as training methods and BCI usability, still needs to be explored.
    Conclusion: Our findings emphasize the importance of increasing awareness of gender-, sex-, and user-related factors in BCI research. In line with recent perspectives that highlight the need to address gender biases and individual differences in the language of the user, their motivation or cultural background, future BCI research should focus on systematically examining gender and sex differences. This will help promote gender equality in BCI research and lead to a better understanding of users' needs, preferences, and individual characteristics.
    Keywords:  Brain-Computer Interfaces; STEAM; career perceptions; electroencephalography; gender bias; literature review; sex differences; women in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1695370
  7. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2026 May 07.
    Gender equity in rheumatology research: global analysis of authors.
    Michael Girdwood, Jean W Liew, Ida K Haugen, Marcella F Pazzinatto, Andrea M Bruder, Nicola Dalbeth, Adam G Culvenor, Tuhina Neogi.
       OBJECTIVE: To investigate gender representation of authors, in rheumatology research over the last decade.
    METHODS: Using metadata from original and review articles published between 2015-2024 in SCImago top 2 quartile (Q1, Q2) rheumatology journals, author gender was classified using two public databases. Geographic location of first-author affiliation was also obtained.. Analyses summarised trends by year, journal quartile and geographic region.
    RESULTS: We included 52,796 articles from 38 journals (19 Q1). There was parity in first authorship between women (45%) and men (43%) in Q1 but not Q2 journals (34% women,50% men). There were more men in last authorship positions (Q1: 35% women, 55% men; Q2: 27% women, 60% men). The ratio of women to men authors by article rose from 0.64 to 0.82 in Q1 journals over 10 years but was stagnant in Q2 journals (0.62 to 0.59). The percentage of total authors that were women increased slightly in Q1 journals (+4.2%) but decreased in Q2 journals (-1.8%). For first authorship, articles from all regions except Asia showed equal representation of men and women. Articles from Asia and Europe showed greatest disparity in last authorship versus other regions.
    CONCLUSION: Representation of women in rheumatology research is equal to that of men in some areas, though a gender gap persists in last authorship, articles from lower-ranked journals, and from Asian and European institutions.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.70210
  8. Ann Plast Surg. 2026 May 08.
    Submitted Works in Plastic Surgery Residency Applications: Longitudinal Trends and Publication Outcomes.
    Myiah P Quach, Jasmine N Craig, Robert E George, Daniel Y Chu, Alyssa Schappe, Jeffrey D Larson, Samuel O Poore.
       BACKGROUND: Applicants to increasingly competitive Integrated Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) lists scholarly works at multiple stages, including "submitted." The eventual outcomes of these submitted works remain poorly characterized. This study evaluated longitudinal trends in submitted research among PRS applicants and assessed whether submitted works reflect genuine scholarly engagement or inflated reporting.
    METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all applicants to a single PRS residency program from 2015 to 2023. Demographic, academic, and research productivity data were collected. Submitted journal articles/abstracts were verified for eventual publication using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase. Primary outcomes were the mean number of submitted works per applicant per year and the proportion ultimately published.
    RESULTS: Among 2098 applicants, the mean numbers of total publications, first-author publications, conference presentations, and submitted manuscripts increased significantly over time (all P<0.001). Both the number of submitted works (P<0.001) and the proportion published (P=0.006) increased over the study period. In 2015, only International Medical Graduate (IMG) status was found to correlate with an increased number of submitted works (P<0.001); this association was no longer present in 2023. In 2023, higher USMLE Step 1 scores, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, greater total publications, and more conference presentations were associated with increased submitted works. In both 2015 and 2023, these applicant characteristics were not significantly associated with publication success.
    CONCLUSIONS: Growth in submitted manuscripts among PRS applicants reflects genuine and increasingly successful scholarly engagement rather than systematic misrepresentation. Consideration of submitted works remains appropriate in evaluating the applicant's research productivity.
    Keywords:  authorship; internship and residency; medical research; plastic surgery; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004759
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 05 12. 123(19): e2528289123
    Social media promotion improves job market outcomes.
    Jingyi Qiu, Yan Chen, Alain Cohn, Alvin E Roth.
      Social media has transformed how academics disseminate research, but its effect on academic job outcomes remains unclear. Previous research has shown correlations between social media exposure and metrics like citation counts, but these relationships may be confounded by unobserved factors such as researcher quality or access to professional networks. We examine whether social media promotion causally affects job market outcomes in economics through a field experiment on Twitter (now X). We first collect tweets about job market papers from 519 candidates and post them from a dedicated account. We then randomize half of the posts to be quote-tweeted by established economists in the candidates' fields, and measure the effects on both online visibility and hiring outcomes. We find that posts in the treatment group receive 441% more views and 303% more likes than those in the control group. Candidates whose posts were assigned to be quote-tweeted receive one additional flyout invitation compared to the control group average of 5.4 flyouts. Furthermore, women in the treatment group receive 0.9 more job offers than women in the control group, who receive 3 offers on average. Exploring mechanisms, we find that academic reputation drives these results, with stronger effects for quote-tweets from highly cited scholars and for candidates from top institutions. Our findings suggest social media promotion causally increases research visibility and improves academic job market outcomes.
    Keywords:  academic job market; field experiment; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2528289123
  10. Nature. 2026 May 07.
    Early-career researchers do more 'disruptive' science than veterans.
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01466-z
  11. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 May 07. pii: 9. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    A scoping review of guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.
    Lasse Østengaard, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Asger S Paludan-Müller, Mia Elkjær, Tove Faber Frandsen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson.
       OBJECTIVES: To identify, summarise and analyse documents with guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.
    METHODS: In a scoping review, we included documents with guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research. We searched in Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar, 20 textbooks, 30 journal websites, and conducted supplementary searches. We categorised original documents as guides if their primary focus was on scholarly citing and if they contained a list of advice. We summarised the guides and pieces of advice, analysed the pieces of advice, and listed illustrative quotes.
    RESULTS: We screened 9.746 documents for eligibility and included 118. The documents were published in 1934-2025, and the guides and advice were primarily identified in journal articles (63 out of 118 documents, 53%) and on websites (42 out of 118 documents, 36%). We identified 12 guides and 75 unique pieces of advice (e.g., "read the papers you cite"). The 12 guides were developed with a simple pragmatic approach, i.e., no systematic literature review of previous studies, and only one guide included a survey as a supporting study. The various pieces of advice were related to seven categories that researchers could reflect on while citing: 1) quality, 2) context, 3) when to cite, 4) integrity, 5) originality, 6) transparency, and 7) availability.
    CONCLUSION: We identified 12 guides and 75 unique pieces of advice for scholarly citing in health research. Our review may serve as a resource for authors of health research publications and as part of the development process for a comprehensive guideline for adequate citation practice in health research.
    Keywords:  Advice; Citing; Guidelines; References
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00195-1
  12. Trials. 2026 May 08.
    Publication bias and time to the publication of randomised trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional study.
    Ameer Hohlfeld, Lorenzo Douglas Maurice Bennie, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke.
       BACKGROUND: Ideally, evidence-based decisions about healthcare interventions should be informed by access to up-to-date information from all relevant RCTs, making it essential that the reports are published soon after study completion. However, studies have consistently shown that between 25 and 50% of clinical trials remain unpublished or are only published many years after completion. The WHO has noted a slow but steady increase in the number of RCTs since the mid-2000s, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, the extent of publication bias of SSA RCTs remains unknown. Therefore, our study objectives were to assess (1) the proportion of completed RCTs from SSA that have been published and (2) the time from completion to publication.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study, consisting of a retrospective analysis of registered SSA RCTs, aims to report the proportion of completed and terminated SSA RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) and their time to publication.
    RESULTS: Our search yielded 7896 records, of which 3026 RCTs met our inclusion criteria for analysis. We identified journal publications for 1983 (65.5%) RCTs. The overall median time to publication from the primary completion date was 34.2 months (95% CI: 32.4 to 35.5).
    CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found a substantial proportion (34.5%) of unpublished SSA RCTs. Moreover, the median time to publication from primary completion was 34.2 months. The persistence of publication bias threatens the integrity of evidence-based healthcare practice, particularly given that consumers depend on peer-reviewed journal publications as conventional and trusted sources to stay informed. Our findings underscore the importance of continued research to test and implement preventative strategies to mitigate publication bias.
    Keywords:  Publication bias; Randomised controlled trials; Research waste
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09753-w
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒06‒24 at 3:35.