Explore the vast range of titles available.

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on individual author-level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application. As such we provide a schematic overview of author-level indicators, where the indicators are broadly categorised into indicators of publication count, indicators that qualify output (on the level of the researcher and journal), indicators of the effect of output (effect as citations, citations normalized to field or the researcher’s body of work), indicators that rank the individual’s work and indicators of impact over time. Supported by an extensive appendix we present how the indicators are computed, the complexity of the mathematical calculation and demands to data-collection, their advantages and limitations as well as references to surrounding discussion in the bibliometric community. The Appendix supporting this study is available online as supplementary material.

Open data sharing is critical for scientific progress. Yet, many authors refrain from sharing scientific data, even when they have promised to do so. Through a preregistered, randomized audit experiment (N = 1,634), we tested possible ethnic, gender and status-related bias in scientists’ data-sharing willingness. 814 (54%) authors of papers where data were indicated to be ‘available upon request’ responded to our data requests, and 226 (14%) either shared or indicated willingness to share all or some data. While our preregistered hypotheses regarding bias in data-sharing willingness were not confirmed, we observed systematically lower response rates for data requests made by putatively Chinese treatments compared to putatively Anglo-Saxon treatments. Further analysis indicated a theoretically plausible heterogeneity in the causal effect of ethnicity on data-sharing. In interaction analyses, we found indications of lower responsiveness and data-sharing willingness towards male but not female data requestors with Chinese names. These disparities, which likely arise from stereotypic beliefs about male Chinese requestors’ trustworthiness and deservingness, impede scientific progress by preventing the free circulation of knowledge.

The present paper examines the relation between size, accumulation and performance for research grants, where we examine the relation between grant size for Centres of Excellence (CoE) funded by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) and various ex post research performance measures, including impact and shares of highly cited articles. We examine both the relation between size and performance and also how performance for CoEs evolves over the course of grant periods. In terms of dynamics, it appears that performance over the grant period (i.e. 10 years) is falling for the largest CoEs, while it is increasing for those among the smallest half. Overall, multivariate econometric analysis finds evidence that performance is increasing in grant size and over time. In both cases, the relation appears to be non-linear, suggesting that there is a point at which performance peaks. The CoEs have also been very successful in securing additional funding, which can be viewed as a 'cumulative effect' of center grants. In terms of new personnel, the far majority of additional funding is spent on early career researchers, hence, this accumulation would appear to have a 'generational' dimension, allowing for scientific expertise to be passed on to an increasing number of younger researchers.

Null hypothesis statistical significance tests (NHST) are widely used in quantitative research in the empirical sciences including scientometrics. Nevertheless, since their introduction nearly a century ago significance tests have been controversial. Many researchers are not aware of the numerous criticisms raised against NHST. As practiced, NHST has been characterized as a ‘null ritual’ that is overused and too often misapplied and misinterpreted. NHST is in fact a patchwork of two fundamentally different classical statistical testing models, often blended with some wishful quasi-Bayesian interpretations. This is undoubtedly a major reason why NHST is very often misunderstood. But NHST also has intrinsic logical problems and the epistemic range of the information provided by such tests is much more limited than most researchers recognize. In this article we introduce to the scientometric community the theoretical origins of NHST, which is mostly absent from standard statistical textbooks, and we discuss some of the most prevalent problems relating to the practice of NHST and trace these problems back to the mix-up of the two different theoretical origins. Finally, we illustrate some of the misunderstandings with examples from the scientometric literature and bring forward some modest recommendations for a more sound practice in quantitative data analysis.

Gender and sex analysis is increasingly recognized as a key factor in creating better medical research and health care 1 – 7 . Using a sample of more than 1.5 million medical research papers, our study examined the potential link between women’s participation in medical science and attention to gender-related and sex-related factors in disease-specific research. Adjusting for variations across countries, disease topics and medical research areas, we compared the participation of women authors in studies that do and do not involve gender and sex analysis. Overall, our results show a robust positive correlation between women’s authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis. These findings corroborate discussions of how women’s participation in medical science links to research outcomes, and show the mutual benefits of promoting both the scientific advancement of women and the integration of gender and sex analysis into medical research. Nielsen and colleagues' analysis of a large database of medical research papers shows a correlation between women's authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis.

In this elaborate response to Wu (in Scientometrics, 2018), I maintain that null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is logically flawed. Wu (2018) disagrees with this claim presented in Schneider (in Scientometrics 102(1):411–432, 2015). In this response, I examine the claim in more depth and demonstrate that since NHST is based on one conditional probability alone and framed in a probabilistic modus tollens framework of reasoning, it is by definition logically invalid. I also argue that disregarding this logically fallacy, as most researchers do, and treating the p value as a heuristic value for dichotomous decisions against the null hypothesis, is a risky business that often leads to false-positive claims.

Research on scientific careers finds a mover's advantage. International migration correlates with increased visibility and productivity. However, if scientists who move internationally, on average, enter into more prestigious employments than they came from, extant research may overestimate the direct performance gains associated with international moves. Building on insights from the sociology of science and studies of international researcher mobility, we examine how changes in employment prestige shape international movers' performance returns to mobility. We follow a cohort of 167,014 European scientists to identify individuals that move to the USA and pair these migrants to non-mobile scientists with identical home institutions, research fields, and genders, giving a final sample of 3978 researchers. Using a difference-in-differences design, we show a substantial increase in the publishing rates and scientific impact of transatlantic migrants, compared to non-mobile scientists. However, most of the movers' mobility-related boost in citation and journal impact is attributable to changes in employment prestige. In contrast, we find limited effects of employment prestige on changes in migrants' publication rates. Overall, our study suggests large variations in the outcomes of transatlantic migration and reaffirms the citation-related \"visibility advantage\" tied to prestigious institutional locations. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).