Archives des catégories : EN

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.’s case

Posté le par

Authors : Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni

In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children” by Wakefield et al., published in 1998.

The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results.

The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.’s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction.

Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.’s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.’s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction.

In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.’s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction.

Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.’s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.

URL : A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.’s case

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04097-5

The Use of Twitter by Medical Journals: Systematic Review of the Literature

Posté le par

Authors : Natalie Erskine, Sharief Hendricks

Background

Medical journals use Twitter to engage and disseminate their research articles and implement a range of strategies to maximize reach and impact.

Objective

This study aims to systematically review the literature to synthesize and describe the different Twitter strategies used by medical journals and their effectiveness on journal impact and readership metrics.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature before February 2020 in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Articles were reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines.

Results

The search identified 44 original research studies that evaluated Twitter strategies implemented by medical journals and analyzed the relationship between Twitter metrics and alternative and citation-based metrics. The key findings suggest that promoting publications on Twitter improves citation-based and alternative metrics for academic medical journals.

Moreover, implementing different Twitter strategies maximizes the amount of attention that publications and journals receive. The four key Twitter strategies implemented by many medical journals are tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. Each strategy was successful in promoting the publications. However, different metrics were used to measure success.

Conclusions

Four key Twitter strategies are implemented by medical journals: tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. In this review, each strategy was successful in promoting publications but used different metrics to measure success.

Thus, it is difficult to conclude which strategy is most effective. In addition, the four strategies have different costs and effects on dissemination and readership. We recommend that journals and researchers incorporate a combination of Twitter strategies to maximize research impact and capture audiences with a variety of learning methods.

URL : The Use of Twitter by Medical Journals: Systematic Review of the Literature

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2196/26378

Gender differences in scientific careers: A large-scale bibliometric analysis

Posté le par

Authors : Hanjo Boekhout, Inge van der Weijden, Ludo Waltman

We present a large-scale bibliometric analysis of gender differences in scientific careers, covering all scientific disciplines and a large number of countries worldwide. We take a longitudinal perspective in which we trace the publication careers of almost six million male and female researchers in the period 1996-2018.

Our analysis reveals an increasing trend in the percentage of women starting a career as publishing researcher, from 33% in 2000 to about 40% in recent years. Looking at cohorts of male and female researchers that started their publication career in the same year, we find that women seem to be somewhat less likely to continue their career as publishing researcher than men, but the difference is small.

We also observe that men produce on average between 15% and 20% more publications than women. Moreover, in biomedical disciplines, men are about 25% more likely than women to be last author of a publication, suggesting that men tend to have more senior roles than women.

Compared with cross-sectional studies, our longitudinal analysis has the advantage of providing a more in-depth understanding of gender imbalances among authors of scientific publications.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12624

Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine

Posté le par

Author : Ruth Breeze

At times of crisis, access to information takes on special importance, and in the Internet age of constant connectedness, this is truer than ever. Over the course of the pandemic, the huge public demand for constantly updated health information has been met with a massive response from official and scientific sources, as well as from the mainstream media. However, it has also generated a vast stream of user-generated digital postings.

Such phenomena are often regarded as unhelpful or even dangerous since they unwittingly spread misinformation or make it easier for potentially harmful disinformation to circulate. However, little is known about the dynamics of such forums or how scientific issues are represented there.

To address this knowledge gap, this chapter uses a corpus-assisted discourse approach to examine how “expert” knowledge and other sources of authority are represented and contested in a corpus of 10,880 reader comments responding to Mail Online articles on the development of the COVID-19 vaccine in February–July 2020.

The results show how “expert” knowledge is increasingly problematized and politicized, while other strategies are used to claim authority. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of sociological theories, and some tentative solutions are proposed.

URL : Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9030034

Reproducibility of COVID-19 pre-prints

Posté le par

Authors : Annie Collins, Rohan Alexander

To examine the reproducibility of COVID-19 research, we create a dataset of pre-prints posted to arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and SocArXiv between 28 January 2020 and 30 June 2021 that are related to COVID-19.

We extract the text from these pre-prints and parse them looking for keyword markers signalling the availability of the data and code underpinning the pre-print. For the pre-prints that are in our sample, we are unable to find markers of either open data or open code for 75 per cent of those on arXiv, 67 per cent of those on bioRxiv, 79 per cent of those on medRxiv, and 85 per cent of those on SocArXiv.

We conclude that there may be value in having authors categorize the degree of openness of their pre-print as part of the pre-print submissions process, and more broadly, there is a need to better integrate open science training into a wide range of fields.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10724

Awareness Mentality and Strategic Behavior in Science

Posté le par

Author : Rafael Ball

Acknowledgement of scientific achievements was and is essentially achieved through the citation of a publication. Increasingly, however, it is no longer just the publication itself that plays an important role, but also the degree of attention that a scientist achieves with this very publication.

Thus, the importance of strategic behavior in science is progressing and an awareness mentality is spreading. In this paper, the causes and backgrounds of this development are discussed, identifying the use of reductionist, quantitative systems in science management and research funding, the loss of critical judgment and technocratic dominance, quantitative assessments used for decision making, altmetrics and the like as alternative views, the use of perception scores in reference databases and universities as well as ambitions of journals as main drivers.

Besides, different forms of strategic behavior in science and the resulting consequences and impacts are being highlighted.

URL : Awareness Mentality and Strategic Behavior in Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.703159

Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science

Posté le par

Authors : Alexander M. Petersen, Mohammed E. Ahmed, Ioannis Pavlidis

To address complex problems, scholars are increasingly faced with challenges of integrating diverse domains. We analyzed the evolution of this convergence paradigm in the ecosystem of brain science, a research frontier that provides a contemporary testbed for evaluating two modes of cross-domain integration: (a) cross-disciplinary collaboration among experts from academic departments associated with disparate disciplines; and (b) cross-topic knowledge recombination across distinct subject areas.

We show that research involving both modes features a 16% citation premium relative to a mono-domain baseline. We further show that the cross-disciplinary mode is essential for integrating across large epistemic distances.

Yet we find research utilizing cross-topic exploration alone—a convergence shortcut—to be growing in prevalence at roughly 3% per year, significantly outpacing the more essential cross-disciplinary convergence mode.

By measuring shifts in the prevalence and impact of different convergence modes in the 5-year intervals up to and after 2013, we find that shortcut patterns may relate to competitive pressures associated with Human Brain funding initiatives launched that year.

Without policy adjustments, flagship funding programs may unintentionally incentivize suboptimal integration patterns, thereby undercutting convergence science’s potential in tackling grand challenges.

URL : Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00869-9