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.

À l’occasion du 50 e anniversaire de l’Association des archivistes du Québec (AAQ), cinq professionnels de l’archivistique ont réalisé une analyse du contenu de la revue Archives à partir d’une approche basée sur des techniques de fouille de textes, complétée par une analyse bibliométrique. Ces techniques facilitent le traitement de grandes quantités de données afin d’en extraire automatiquement certaines caractéristiques qui les ont renseignés tant sur l’évolution thématique de la revue que sur la place qu’occupe sa production dans l’espace archivistique scientifique et professionnel québécois et international. Leur article offre une occasion de revenir sur les principales thématiques abordées dans la revue depuis les vingt dernières années en rendant compte de l’évolution des objets de recherche étudiés et, plus généralement, de la profession archivistique. Il permet également de s’interroger sur les liens existants entre les auteurs et leurs institutions, et de faire le point sur l’académisation ou la professionnalisation de la revue.

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.

Cet article vise à décrire les influences intellectuelles de la revue Criminologie . Pour ce faire, les 19 813 références faites par les articles publiés dans la revue Criminologie au cours des 40 dernières années sont analysées de manière à dégager l’influence qu’elles ont pu avoir sur les auteurs de la revue. Les auteurs, revues et disciplines les plus influents sont répertoriés et mis en relation avec les caractéristiques des articles qui les citent. Les résultats montrent que le savoir qui inspire les auteurs de la revue est très décentralisé : aucun auteur ou revue ne peut prétendre avoir un ascendant sur un nombre important d’auteurs de Criminologie . Les auteurs et les revues les plus cités sont ceux qui ont su se diversifier et retenir l’attention d’un large auditoire qui travaille avec des traditions de recherches différentes.

This paper looks at whether Criminologie has been influenced by any particular intellectual position or positions through analysis of the 19,813 references cited in the papers it has published over the last 40 years. The most influential authors, journals, and disciplines are discussed in relation to the effect they might have had on the articles in which they are cited. The results show that the thinking that influenced those published in Criminologie was highly decentralized : we found no dominant authors or journals. The most cited authors and journals were those who understood how to diversify their research and capture the attention of a broad audience in different research traditions.

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.

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.

Funding acknowledgements found in scientific publications have been used for decades to study the role of funding in science production. However, beyond funding information, acknowledgements convey the indebtedness of authors to individuals, institutions and organizations that contributed, in some way, to the research that lead to publication. The objective of this paper is to explore the different types of contributions acknowledged in WoS funding acknowledgement (FA) texts. The Correspondence Analysis performed in this study reveals that FAs offer a unique window on research and collaborative practices, credit distribution, and how these vary across disciplines. FAs thus contribute to make the traditionally "invisible contributions" visible to the scientific community. Results presented in this study go further in demonstrating that acknowledgements are not confined to credit attribution, as they include disclosures of conflict of interest.

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.

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.

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.

Presentation accepted at #altmetrics14 #WebSci14Introduction. In the fields of Physics, Mathematics and Computer science, depositing preprints or e-prints on arXiv is part of the publication cycle, as it provides access to papers, limits publication delays and establishes priority claims (Brooks, 2009). Between 1995 and 2011, about two-thirds of all arXiv e-prints could be matched to a journal article indexed in the Web of Science (Lariviere et al., 2014). However, very little is known about the dissemination of these two versions across social media. The microblogging service Twitter has been identified as a tool used by academics and the general public to distribute, among other things, links to scholarly documents (Thelwall et al., 2013). Preliminary studies have demonstrated that the majority of tweets related to a scientific document appear shortly after its online availability, reaching a peak of activity much faster than citations and downloads (Eysenbach, 2011; Shuai, Pepe & Bollen, 2012). This suggests that an important share of tweets to papers in Physics, Computer science and Mathematics are likely to be made to the arXiv rather than the published version of the paper. This study investigates the challenges of measuring Twitter activity to the journal of record and arXiv versions of scientific documents.

In recent years we have been witnessing an increase in the need for advanced bibliometric indicators for individual researchers and research groups, for which author disambiguation is needed. Using the complete population of university professors and researchers in the Canadian province of Québec (N = 13,479), their papers as well as the papers authored by their homonyms, this paper provides evidence of regularities in researchers’ publication patterns. It shows how these patterns can be used to automatically assign papers to individuals and remove papers authored by their homonyms. Two types of patterns were found: (1) at the individual researchers’ level and (2) at the level of disciplines. On the whole, these patterns allow the construction of an algorithm that provides assignment information for at least one paper for 11,105 (82.4 %) out of all 13,479 researchers—with a very low percentage of false positives (3.2 %).

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science ( WoS ), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS , (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e‐prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers—both published and unpublished—have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.