Women's contributions to the medical field have increased substantially over the past 4 decades but women remain underrepresented. Since research productivity is an important criterion for promotion, it was essential to assess the gender differences within the faculty of medicine and across departments. We conducted a bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database between 2009 and 2018 at the American University of Beirut (N = 324, 93 women, 231 men). Women comprised 29% of the faculty. The rank of Professor was held by 34% of men and 18% of women (p < 0.0001). Mean number of publications was 30.12 for males compared to 20.77 for females (p = 0.007). Men were more often last authors (p < 0.0001) and corresponding authors (p < 0.01). In the MD subcategory (N = 282), the gender difference in number of publications, H-index, and total citations was not significant. Women MDs were underrepresented as last authors (p < 0.0001). Among PhD faculty (N = 42), males had greater H-Indices (p = 0.02) and were more often last and corresponding authors. After adjusting for the year of appointment: the gender differences in corresponding and last authorship lost statistical significance among MDs but not among PhDs where it became more pronounced. In conclusion, women in the faculty of medicine were underrepresented in most departments, senior ranks and senior research authorships; H-indices generally did not differ, which was partially explained by the later year of appointment among females. In a developing country, greater family responsibilities especially early in their careers, may put women at a disadvantage in research productivity.

The Matthew Effect, which breeds success from success, may rely on standing on the shoulders of others, citation bias, or the efforts of a collaborative network. Prestige is driven by resource, which in turn feeds prestige, amplifying advantage and rewards, and ultimately skewing recognition.

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018 and can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

A mathematical model designed to forecast the success of biotechnology papers has drawn criticism from researchers.

We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated.

Acting as a reviewer is considered a substantial part of the role-bundle of the academic profession. However, little is known about academics' motivation to act as reviewers. 

A preliminary network analysis highlights the complex intellectual property landscape behind mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines.

Thinning indicates profound impact of humans and could affect satellites and GPS.

This study examines psychologists' motivations to share data and how to better promote psychologists' data sharing and open data badge adoption.

Increasing evidence of women's under-representation in some scientific disciplines is prompting researchers to reassess common narratives that women's under-representation is due to limited skills and/or social centrality.

This discussion paper describes and discusses the problems and the consequences of science disinformation in three areas of concern, namely climate change, vaccines and pandemics, and what we can do to increase awareness and minimize harm caused by the spread of disinformation.

A comparison of preprints and their final journal publications show discrepancies in results reporting and spins in interpretation.

Early career researchers appear to be at the vanguard of open research, with them reporting more positive attitudes towards sharing of code compared to more experienced researchers.

This perspective piece on the perceived barriers and ways forward to advance data citation practices was written by members of the Make Data Count team which is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. 

The scientific merit of a paper and its ability to reach broader audiences is essential for scientific impact. Thus, scientific merit measurements are made by scientometric indexes, and journals are increasingly using published papers as open access (OA).

Open Science requires a sustainable, trustworthy and comprehensive network of repositories that can support researchers around the world in managing, sharing and preserving their data, argue Science Europe, COAR, CoreTrustSeal, the European University Association, and the World Data System.

The BMBF project OPTIMETA aims to strengthen the Open Access publishing system by connecting open citations and spatiotemporal metadata from open access journals with openly accessible data sources.

Correcting mistakes and updating findings is often considered to be a key characteristic of scientific research. In practice, self-correction of published research is infrequent, difficult to achieve, and perceived to come with reputational costs. 

The management of research data has become an essential aspect of good scientific practice. Education in research data management is, however, scarce.

Paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions by using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).

This special issue covers a diversity of topics on Chinese science, ranging from scientometric analyses to studies of the Chinese science system and research assessment in China.

Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to the horizon to imagine how researchers and institutions can clear the path towards more credible and effective research programmes.

Students in the organizational theory and leadership course taught by Trevor Owe at the University of Maryland’s iSchool worked together to produce this book. 

A preregistered survey experiment spanning six disciplines has found weak evidence of bias in favour of authors from high-status countries and institutions.

An Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.

Authorship represents a highly discussed topic in nowadays academia. The share of co-authored papers has increased substantially in recent years allowing scientists to specialize and focus on specific tasks. But what does authorship actually mean in the social sciences?

PubMed Central articles are an important source of COVID-19 datasets, but there is significant heterogeneity in the way these datasets are mentioned, shared, updated and cited.

Article investigates the representativeness of faculty childhood socioeconomic status and whether it may implicitly limit efforts to diversify the professoriate in terms of race, gender, and geography.

Society deserves academic discourse that is civil, cool, unbiased, and objective - but the Covid-19 pandemic has accentuated an erosion in civility in academic discourse, leading to deep divisions being played out in social, mass, and professional media.

Editormetrics analyse the role of editors of academic journals and their impact on the scientific publication system. However, such analyses would best rely on open, structured and machine-readable data on editors and editorial boards, whose availability still remains rare.