The risks associated with poor medical database management are ever heightened in today's global pandemic, as the world struggles with control over COVID-19.

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.