International authorship and collaboration across bioRxiv preprints.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abdill RJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7384855 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
International authorship and collaboration across bioRxiv preprints.
Abdill Richard J RJ Adamowicz Elizabeth M EM Blekhman Ran R
eLife 20200727
Preprints are becoming well established in the life sciences, but relatively little is known about the demographics of the researchers who post preprints and those who do not, or about the collaborations between preprint authors. Here, based on an analysis of 67,885 preprints posted on bioRxiv, we find that some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are overrepresented on bioRxiv relative to their overall scientific output, while other countries (including China, Russia, a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportancePreprints have been increasingly used in biomedical science, and a key feature of many platforms is public commenting. The content of these comments, however, has not been well studied, and it is unclear whether they resemble those found in journal peer review.ObjectiveTo describe the content of comments on the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint platforms.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 were accessed through each platform's application programming interface on March 29, 2021, and a random sample of preprints containing between 1 and 20 comments was evaluated independently by 3 evaluators using an instrument to assess their features and general content.Main outcome and measuresThe numbers and percentages of comments from authors or nonauthors were assessed, and the comments from nonauthors were assessed for content. These nonauthor comments were assessed to determine whether they included compliments, criticisms, corrections, suggestions, or questions, as well as their topics (eg, relevance, interpretation, and methods). Nonauthor comments were also analyzed to determine whether they included references, provided a summary of the findings, or questioned the preprint's conclusions.ResultsOf 52 736 preprints, 3850 (7.3%) received at least 1 comment (mean [SD] follow-up, 7.5 [3.6] months), and the 1921 assessed comments (from 1037 preprints) had a median length of 43 words (range, 1-3172 words). The criticisms, corrections, or suggestions present in 694 of 1125 comments (61.7%) were the most prevalent content, followed by compliments (n = 428 [38.0%]) and questions (n = 393 [35.0%]). Criticisms usually regarded interpretation (n = 286), methodological design (n = 267), and data collection (n = 238), while compliments were mainly about relevance (n = 111) and implications (n = 72).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of preprint comments, topics commonly associated with journal peer review were frequent. However, only a small percentage of preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 received comments on these platforms. A clearer taxonomy of peer review roles would help to describe whether postpublication peer review fulfills them.
| S-EPMC10469270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The growth of preprints in the life sciences has been reported widely and is driving policy changes for journals and funders, but little quantitative information has been published about preprint usage. Here, we report how we collected and analyzed data on all 37,648 preprints uploaded to bioRxiv.org, the largest biology-focused preprint server, in its first five years. The rate of preprint uploads to bioRxiv continues to grow (exceeding 2,100 in October 2018), as does the number of downloads (1.1 million in October 2018). We also find that two-thirds of preprints posted before 2017 were later published in peer-reviewed journals, and find a relationship between the number of downloads a preprint has received and the impact factor of the journal in which it is published. We also describe Rxivist.org, a web application that provides multiple ways to interact with preprint metadata.
| S-EPMC6510536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWhile early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.Materials and methodsWe analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.ResultsOur analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints' authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors' comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).ConclusionsOur results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.
| S-EPMC8047782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Engagement with scientific manuscripts is frequently facilitated by Twitter and other social media platforms. As such, the demographics of a paper's social media audience provide a wealth of information about how scholarly research is transmitted, consumed, and interpreted by online communities. By paying attention to public perceptions of their publications, scientists can learn whether their research is stimulating positive scholarly and public thought. They can also become aware of potentially negative patterns of interest from groups that misinterpret their work in harmful ways, either willfully or unintentionally, and devise strategies for altering their messaging to mitigate these impacts. In this study, we collected 331,696 Twitter posts referencing 1,800 highly tweeted bioRxiv preprints and leveraged topic modeling to infer the characteristics of various communities engaging with each preprint on Twitter. We agnostically learned the characteristics of these audience sectors from keywords each user's followers provide in their Twitter biographies. We estimate that 96% of the preprints analyzed are dominated by academic audiences on Twitter, suggesting that social media attention does not always correspond to greater public exposure. We further demonstrate how our audience segmentation method can quantify the level of interest from nonspecialist audience sectors such as mental health advocates, dog lovers, video game developers, vegans, bitcoin investors, conspiracy theorists, journalists, religious groups, and political constituencies. Surprisingly, we also found that 10% of the preprints analyzed have sizable (>5%) audience sectors that are associated with right-wing white nationalist communities. Although none of these preprints appear to intentionally espouse any right-wing extremist messages, cases exist in which extremist appropriation comprises more than 50% of the tweets referencing a given preprint. These results present unique opportunities for improving and contextualizing the public discourse surrounding scientific research.
| S-EPMC7508356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interdisciplinary research collaboration is needed to perform transformative science and accelerate innovation. The Science of Team Science strives to investigate, evaluate, and foster team science, including institutional policies that may promote or hinder collaborative interdisciplinary research and the resources and infrastructure needed to promote team science within and across institutions. Social network analysis (SNA) has emerged as a useful method to measure interdisciplinary science through the evaluation of several types of collaboration networks, including co-authorship networks. Likewise, research administrators are responsible for conducting rigorous evaluation of policies and initiatives. Within this paper, we present a case study using SNA to evaluate inter-programmatic collaboration (evidenced by co-authoring scientific papers) from 2007-2014 among scientists who are members of four formal research programs at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, the Markey Cancer Center (MCC) at the University of Kentucky. We evaluate change in network descriptives over time and implement separable temporal exponential-family random graph models (STERGMs) to estimate the effect of author and network variables on the tendency to form a co-authorship tie. We measure the diversity of the articles published over time (Blau's Index) to understand whether the changes in the co-authorship network are reflected in the diversity of articles published by research members. Over the 8-year period, we found increased inter-programmatic collaboration among research members as evidenced by co-authorship of published scientific papers. Over time, MCC Members collaborated more with others outside of their research program and outside their initial dense co-authorship groups, however tie formation continues to be driven by co-authoring with individuals of the same research program and academic department. Papers increased in diversity over time on all measures with the exception of author gender. This inter-programmatic research was fostered by policy changes in cancer center administration encouraging interdisciplinary research through both informal (e.g., annual retreats, seminar series) and formal (e.g., requiring investigators from more than two research programs on applications for pilot funding) means. Within this cancer center, interdisciplinary co-authorship increased over time as policies encouraging this collaboration were implemented. Yet, there is room for improvement in creating more interdisciplinary and diverse ties between research program members.
| S-EPMC6703830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multi-disciplinary interests in understanding careers of elite scientists, there have been limited attempts for a quantitative, career-level analysis. Here, we leverage a comprehensive dataset we assembled, allowing us to trace the entire career histories of nearly all Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine over the past century. We find that, although Nobel laureates were energetic producers from the outset, producing works that garner unusually high impact, their careers before winning the prize follow relatively similar patterns to those of ordinary scientists, being characterized by hot streaks and increasing reliance on collaborations. We also uncovered notable variations along their careers, often associated with the Nobel Prize, including shifting coauthorship structure in the prize-winning work, and a significant but temporary dip in the impact of work they produce after winning the Nobel Prize. Together, these results document quantitative patterns governing the careers of scientific elites, offering an empirical basis for a deeper understanding of the hallmarks of exceptional careers in science.
| S-EPMC7211484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In academia, authorship is considered a currency and is important for career advancement. As the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) is the highest-ranked journal in the field of bone, muscle, and mineral metabolism and is the official publication of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, we sought to examine authorship changes over JBMR's 30-year history. Two bibliometric methods were used to collect the data. The "decade method" included all published manuscripts throughout 1 year in each decade over the past 30 years starting with the inaugural year, yielding 746 manuscripts for analysis. The "random method" examined 10% of published manuscripts from each of the 30 years, yielding 652 manuscripts for analysis. Using both methods, the average number of authors per manuscript, numerical location of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions, number of collaborating countries, number of printed manuscript pages, and the number of times each manuscript was cited all significantly increased between 1986 and 2015 (p < 10-4 ). Using the decade method, there was a significant increase in the percentage of female first authors over time from 35.8% in 1986 to 47.7% in 2015 (p = 0.02), and this trend was confirmed using the random method. The highest percentage of female first authors in 2015 was in Europe (60.0%), and Europe also had the most dramatic increase in female first authors over time (more than double in 2015 compared with 1986). Likewise, the overall number of female corresponding authors significantly increased during the past 30 years. With the increasing demands of publishing in academic medicine, understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time and by geographical region is important. These findings highlight JBMR's authorship trends over the past 30 years and demonstrate those countries having the most changes and where challenges still exist. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
| S-EPMC5732055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate authors' awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were 'very familiar' with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was 'sometimes' or 'frequently' encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.
| S-EPMC7507845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study of international collaborations can help in understanding the benefits of such relationships and aid in developing national financing policies. In this paper, the international collaboration of Brazilian scientists was studied using SciVal® and Incites® database, looking at its effect on the universities, financing agencies and different areas of knowledge and research topic clusters. Cluster and principal component analyses of scientometric data were carried out. While the results confirmed known knowledge that international collaboration increases impact, this study shows that Brazilian researchers are contributing to prominent research topics worldwide, in all areas of knowledge. This finding is contrary to several points of view that identify Brazil as a regional and not an international partner in science. Important also to note the impact of Brazilian authors in international collaboration that is well above the world mean. The collaboration of Brazil with foreign partners brings benefits for both sides, creating the opportunity of Brazilian research access to financing from international agencies. Increases in measures of impact are also seen for both sides. Foreign partners likewise benefit from higher impact factors in the same topic cluster, when collaborating with Brazilian partners. Publishing open access in high impact journals is fundamental for maintaining Brazilian science at the forefront.
| S-EPMC7547822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gaps in the translation of research findings to clinical management have been recognized for decades. They exist for the diagnosis as well as the management of cancer. The international standards for cancer diagnosis are contained within the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours, published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and known worldwide as the WHO Blue Books. In addition to their relevance to individual patients, these volumes provide a valuable contribution to cancer research and surveillance, fulfilling an important role in scientific evidence synthesis and international standard setting. However, the multidimensional nature of cancer classification, the way in which the WHO Classification of Tumours is constructed, and the scientific information overload in the field pose important challenges for the translation of research findings to tumour classification and hence cancer diagnosis. To help address these challenges, we have established the International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research (IC3 R) to provide a forum for the coordination of efforts in evidence generation, standard setting and best practice recommendations in the field of tumour classification. The first IC3 R meeting, held in Lyon, France, in February 2019, gathered representatives of major institutions involved in tumour classification and related fields to identify and discuss translational challenges in data comparability, standard setting, quality management, evidence evaluation and copyright, as well as to develop a collaborative plan for addressing these challenges.
| S-EPMC7756795 | biostudies-literature