Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and preclinical studies have shown that there are sex-based differences at the genetic, cellular, biochemical, and physiological levels. Despite this, numerous studies have shown poor levels of inclusion of female populations into medical research. These disparities in sex inclusion in research are further complicated by the absence of sufficient reporting and analysis by sex of study populations. Disparities in the inclusion of the sexes in medical research substantially reduce the utility of the results of such research for the entire population. The absence of sex-related reporting are problematical for the translation of research from the preclinical to clinical and applied health settings. Large-scale studies are needed to identify the extent of sex-related reporting and where disparities are more prevalent. In addition, while several studies have shown the dearth of female researchers in science, few have evaluated whether a scarcity of women in science might be related to disparities in sex inclusion and reporting. We aimed to do a cross-disciplinary analysis of the degree of sex-related reporting across the health sciences-from biomedical, to clinical, and public health research-and the role of author gender in sex-related reporting. METHODS: This bibliometric analysis analysed sex-related reporting in medical research examining more than 11·5 million papers indexed in Web of Science and PubMed between 1980 and 2016 and using sex-related Medical Subject Headings as a proxy for sex reporting. For papers that were published between 2008 and 2016 and could be matched with PubMed, we assigned a gender to first and last authors on the basis of their names, according to our gender assignment algorithm. We removed papers for which we could not determine the gender of either the first or last author. We grouped papers into three disciplinary categories (biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health). We used descriptive statistics and regression analyses (controlling for the number of authors and representation of women in specific diseases, countries, continents, year, and specialty areas) to study associations between the gender of the authors and sex-related reporting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, sex-related reporting increased from 59% to 67% in clinical medicine and from 36% to 69% in public health research. But for biomedical research, sex remains largely under-reported (31% in 2016). Papers with female first and last authors had an increased probability of reporting sex, with an odds ratio of 1·26 (95% CI 1·24 to 1·27), and sex-related reporting was associated with publications in journals with low journal impact factors. For publications in 2016, sex-related reporting of both male and female is associated with a reduction of -0·51 (95% CI -0·54 to -0·47) in journal impact factors. INTERPRETATION: Gender disparities in the scientific workforce and scarcity of policies on sex-related reporting at the journal and institutional level could inhibit effective research translation from bench to clinical studies. Diversification in the scientific workforce and in the research populations-from cell lines, to rodents, to humans-is essential to produce the most rigorous and effective medical research. FUNDING: Canada Research Chairs.

Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.

Background: There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. Methods: The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines, understanding areas of strengths and weakness and the level of collaboration and coordination across countries and between funders. The work consisted of two main elements: analysis of the references cited on NICE guidelines and interviews with experts in public health. Results: Across the papers cited on 62 NICE public health guidelines, we find that 28% of the papers matched include at least one UK affiliation, which is relatively high when compared to other health fields. In total, 165 unique funders were identified with more than three acknowledgements, based in 20 countries. 68% of papers which acknowledge funding cite at least one UK funder, and NIHR is the most highly cited funder in the sample.   Conclusions: The UK makes an important contribution to public health research cited on NICE PH guidelines, although the research does not appear to be bibliometrically distinct from other research sectors, other than having a relatively low level of international collaboration. However, the extent to which NICE public health guidelines reflect practice at the local authority level is less clear. More research is needed to understand the sources of evidence to support public health decision making at the local level and how NICE guidance can be made more applicable, timely and accessible in this new context.

Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research.

Anecdotes abound regarding the decline of basic research in industrial and governmental settings, but very little empirical evidence exists about the phenomenon. This article provides a systematic and historical analysis of the contribution of various institutional sectors to knowledge production at the world and country levels across the past four decades. It highlights a dramatic decline in the diffusion of basic research by industrial and governmental sectors across all countries-with a corresponding increase in the share from universities-as well as an increase of partnerships between universities and other sectors. Results also shows an increase in the relative share of industries in applied research, as measured through patents. Such divergence in university and industry research activities may hinder industries' ability to translate basic knowledge into technological innovation, and could lead to a growing misalignment between doctoral training and future job expectations. Industries and universities must rethink strategies for partnerships and publishing to maximize scientific progress and to ensure the greatest gains for society.

The KRESCENT Program (2005-2015): An Evaluation of the State of Kidney Research Training in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training (KRESCENT) Program was launched in 2005 to enhance kidney research capacity in Canada and foster knowledge translation across the 4 themes of health research. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of KRESCENT on its major objectives and on the careers of trainees after its first 10 years. METHODS: An online survey of trainees (n = 53) who had completed or were enrolled in KRESCENT was conducted in 2015. Information was also obtained from curriculum vitae (CVs). A bibliometric analysis assessed scientific productivity, collaboration, and impact in comparison with unsuccessful applicants to KRESCENT over the same period. The analysis included a comparison of Canadian with international kidney research metrics from 2000 to 2014. RESULTS: Thirty-nine KRESCENT trainees completed the survey (74%), and 44 trainees (83%) submitted CVs. KRESCENT trainees had a high success rate at obtaining grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; 79%), and 76% of Post-Doctoral Fellows received academic appointments at the Assistant Professor level within 8 months of completing training. The majority of trainees reported that KRESCENT had contributed significantly to their success in securing CIHR funding (90%), and to the creation of knowledge (93%) and development of new methodologies (50%). Bibliometric analysis revealed a small but steady decline in total international kidney research output from 2000 to 2014, as a percentage of all health research, although overall impact of kidney research in Canada increased from 2000-2005 to 2009-2014 compared with other countries. KRESCENT trainees demonstrated increased productivity, multiauthored papers, impact, and international collaborations after their training, compared with nonfunded applicants. CONCLUSIONS: The KRESCENT Program has fostered kidney research career development and contributed to increased capacity, productivity, and collaboration. To further enhance knowledge creation and translation in kidney research in Canada, programs such as KRESCENT should be sustained via long-term funding partnerships.

MISE EN CONTEXTE: Le programme KRESCENT (Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training) a été lancé en 2005 pour augmenter la capacité de la recherche sur les maladies du rein à travers le Canada, et pour encourager la transmission des connaissances au sein des quatre axes de recherche en santé. OBJECTIFS DE L'ÉTUDE: Cette étude avait pour but d'évaluer les répercussions du programme KRESCENT sur ses principaux objectifs ainsi que des retombées sur la carrière des stagiaires participants, dix ans après sa création. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Un sondage en ligne a été mené en 2015 auprès des stagiaires (n = 53) ayant été admis ou ayant complété le programme KRESCENT. Des renseignements ont également été obtenus par la consultation de curriculum vitae (CV). Une analyse bibliométrique a évalué la productivité scientifique et la collaboration des participants ainsi que les répercussions de leur participation à KRESCENT sur leur carrière. Les données de cette analyse ont été comparées à celles des candidats n'ayant pas été retenus au cours de la même période. L'analyse comprenait également une comparaison des données canadiennes avec celles obtenues en recherche sur les maladies du rein ailleurs dans le monde. RÉSULTATS: Trente-neuf stagiaires du KRESCENT ont complété le sondage en ligne, soit 74% des personnes contactées, et quarante-quatre ont soumis leur CV. De manière générale, les stagiaires du KRESCENT ont obtenu plus facilement des subventions des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC) avec un taux de succès de 79%. De plus, 76% des détenteurs d'une bourse au niveau postdoctoral ont obtenu des charges professorales à titre de professeur adjoint dans les 8 mois suivant leur formation. La très grande majorité des stagiaires (90%) a indiqué que le KRESCENT avait grandement contribué au fait qu'ils aient obtenu les fonds des IRSC, de même qu'à la création de nouveaux savoirs (93% des répondants) et au développement de nouvelles méthodes (50% des répondants). L'analyse bibliométrique a révélé un léger, quoique régulier, déclin de la quantité de résultats en recherche sur les maladies du rein dans le monde entre 2000 et 2014, lorsque converti en pourcentage des résultats totaux en recherche sur la santé. Et ce, bien que l'incidence générale de la recherche sur les maladies du rein ait augmenté au Canada de 2000 à 2005 ainsi qu'entre 2009 et 2014 en comparaison des autres pays. De manière générale, à la suite de leur formation, les stagiaires du KRESCENT ont démontré une plus grande productivité, ont plus souvent participé à la rédaction de publications collectives ou à des collaborations internationales que les demandeurs n'ayant pas reçu de financement. CONCLUSION: Le programme KRESCENT a favorisé le perfectionnement professionnel en recherche sur les maladies du rein et a contribué à augmenter la capacité de recherche, la productivité et la collaboration des participants. Ainsi, pour poursuivre la création de nouveaux savoirs en recherche sur les maladies du rein et faciliter leur transmission auprès des chercheurs canadiens, nous sommes d'avis que les programmes de formation tels que le KRESCENT devraient continuer d'être financés sur le long terme par l'entremise de partenariats.

Is Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender Differences in Contributorship.

PURPOSE: Women remain underrepresented in the production of scientific literature, and relatively little is known regarding the labor roles played by women in the production of knowledge. This study examined labor roles by gender using contributorship data from science and medical journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), which require each author to indicate their contribution to one or more of the following tasks: (1) analyzed the data, (2) conceived and designed the experiments, (3) contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, (4) performed the experiments, and (5) wrote the paper. METHOD: The authors analyzed contribution data from more than 85,000 articles published between 2008 and 2013 in PLOS journals with respect to gender using both descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Gender was a significant variable in determining the likelihood of performing a certain task associated with authorship. Women were significantly more likely to be associated with performing experiments, and men were more likely to be associated with all other authorship roles. This holds true controlling for academic age: Although experimentation was associated with academically younger scholars, the gap between male and female contribution to this task remained constant across academic age. Inequalities were observed in the distribution of scientific labor roles. CONCLUSIONS: These disparities have implications for the production of scholarly knowledge, the evaluation of scholars, and the ethical conduct of science. Adopting the practice of identifying contributorship rather than authorship in scientific journals will allow for greater transparency, accountability, and equitable allocation of resources.

Stability and Longevity in the Publication Careers of U.S. Doctorate Recipients.

Since the 1950s, the number of doctorate recipients has risen dramatically in the United States. In this paper, we investigate whether the longevity of doctorate recipients' publication careers has changed. This is achieved by matching 1951-2010 doctorate recipients with rare names in astrophysics, chemistry, economics, genetics and psychology in the dissertation database ProQuest to their publications in the publication database Web of Science. Our study shows that pre-PhD publication careers have changed: the median year of first publication has shifted from after the PhD to several years before PhD in most of the studied fields. In contrast, post-PhD publication career spans have not changed much in most fields. The share of doctorate recipients who have published for more than twenty years has remained stable over time; the shares of doctorate recipients publishing for shorter periods also remained almost unchanged. Thus, though there have been changes in pre-PhD publication careers, post-PhD career spans remained quite stable.

Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production.

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors' seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as 'technical' and those that could be considered 'conceptual': While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.

Scientists popularizing science: characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters.

The TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference and associated website of recorded conference presentations (TED Talks) is a highly successful disseminator of science-related videos, claiming over a billion online views. Although hundreds of scientists have presented at TED, little information is available regarding the presenters, their academic credentials, and the impact of TED Talks on the general population. This article uses bibliometric and webometric techniques to gather data on the characteristics of TED presenters and videos and analyze the relationship between these characteristics and the subsequent impact of the videos. The results show that the presenters were predominately male and non-academics. Male-authored videos were more popular and more liked when viewed on YouTube. Videos by academic presenters were more commented on than videos by others and were more liked on YouTube, although there was little difference in how frequently they were viewed. The majority of academic presenters were senior faculty, males, from United States-based institutions, were visible online, and were cited more frequently than average for their field. However, giving a TED presentation appeared to have no impact on the number of citations subsequently received by an academic, suggesting that although TED popularizes research, it may not promote the work of scientists within the academic community.

International comparative performance of mental health research, 1980-2011.

Scientific understanding of mental illness, mental health and their neurobiological and psychosocial underpinnings has greatly increased in the last three decades. Yet, little is known about the landscape of this knowledge and how and where it is evolving. This paper provides a bibliometric assessment of mental health research (MHR) outputs from 1980 to 2011. MHR papers were retrieved using three strategies: from key mental health journals; using US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords; and from additional journals in which mental health topics accounted for over 75% of papers. The number of papers per year increased over time in absolute terms and as a proportion of total medical output. The US's proportion of world publication output dropped from 60% in 1980 to 42% in 2011, while the EU increased its share from 27% to 40%. Countries with greater research intensity in mental health generally had higher citation impact, such as the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands. MHR also became more collaborative: 3% of all MHR papers published in 1980 were the result of international collaboration compared to 22% in 2011. We conclude by noting that the rise in MHR appears to be due to funding and that bibliometrics can help highlight the potential drivers of variation in performance of MHR systems. The paper provides an analytical basis for benchmarking MHR trends in the future.

The effects of aging on researchers' publication and citation patterns.

The average age at which U.S. researchers receive their first grant from NIH has increased from 34.3 in 1970, to 41.7 in 2004. These data raise the crucial question of the effects of aging on the scientific productivity and impact of researchers. Drawing on a sizeable sample of 6,388 university professors in Quebec who have published at least one paper between 2000 and 2007, our results identify two turning points in the professors' careers. A first turning point is visible at age 40 years, where researchers start to rely on older literature and where their productivity increases at a slower pace--after having increased sharply since the beginning of their career. A second turning point can be seen around age 50, when researchers are the most productive whereas their average scientific impact is at its lowest. Our results also show that older professors publish fewer first-authored papers and move closer to the end of the list of co-authors. Although average scientific impact per paper decreases linearly until about age 50, the average number of papers in highly cited journals and among highly cited papers rises continuously until retirement. Our results show clearly that productivity and impact are not a simple and declining function of age and that we must take into account the collaborative aspects of scientific research. Science is a collective endeavor and, as our data shows, researchers of all ages play a significant role in its dynamic.