Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study aims to compare the geographical and disciplinary coverage of OA journals in three databases: OpenAlex, Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS). We used the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD), provided by the ISSN International Centre, as a reference to identify OA active journals (as of May 2024). Among the 62,701 active OA journals listed in ROAD, the WoS indexes 6,157 journals, Scopus indexes 7,351, while OpenAlex indexes 34,217. A striking observation is the presence of 24,976 OA journals exclusively in OpenAlex, whereas only 182 journals are exclusively present in the WoS and 373 in Scopus. The geographical analysis focuses on two levels: continents and countries. As for disciplinary comparison, we use the ten disciplinary levels of the ROAD database. Moreover, our findings reveal a similarity in OA journal coverage between the WoS and Scopus. However, while OpenAlex offers better inclusivity and indexing, it is not without biases. The WoS and Scopus predictably favor journals from Europe, North America and Oceania. Although OpenAlex presents a much more balanced indexing, certain regions and countries remain relatively underrepresented. Typically, Africa is proportionally as under-represented in OpenAlex as it is in Scopus, and some emerging countries are proportionally less represented in OpenAlex than in the WoS and Scopus. These results underscore a marked similarity in OA journal indexing between WoS and Scopus, while OpenAlex aligns more closely with the distribution observed in the ROAD database, although it also exhibits some representational biases.

ObjectiveTo investigate whether there is a difference in citation rate between open access and subscription access articles in the field of radiology.MethodsThis study included consecutive original articles published online in European Radiology. Pearson χ2, Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess for any differences between open access and subscription access articles. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between open access publishing and citation rate, adjusted for continent of origin, subspeciality, study findings in article title, number of authors, number of references, length of the article, and number of days the article has been online. In a secondary analysis, we determined the association between open access and number of downloads and shares.ResultsA total of 500 original studies, of which 86 (17.2%) were open access and 414 (82.8%) were subscription access articles, were included. Articles from Europe or North America were significantly more frequently published open access (p = 0.024 and p = 0.001), while articles with corresponding authors from Asia were significantly less frequently published open access (p < 0.001). In adjusted linear regression analysis, open access articles were significantly more frequently cited (beta coefficient = 3.588, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.668 to 6.508, p = 0.016), downloaded (beta coefficient = 759.801, 95% CI 630.917 to 888.685, p < 0.001), and shared (beta coefficient = 0.748, 95% CI 0.124 to 1.372, p = 0.019) than subscription access articles (beta coefficient = 3.94, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 6.44, p = 0.002).ConclusionOpen access publishing is independently associated with an increased citation, download, and share rate in the field of radiology.Key Points• A minority of articles are currently published open access in European Radiology.• European and North American authors tend to publish more open access articles than Asian authors.• Open access publishing seems to offer an independent advantage in terms of citation, download, and share rate.

Early analyses suggest that female academics are posting fewer preprints and starting fewer research projects than their male peers. How female academics are losing ground during the pandemic Early analyses suggest that female academics are posting fewer preprints and starting fewer research projects than their male peers.

Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes 1 , 2 , wherein previous accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton’s words, ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 – 7 . Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances 8 , 9 . Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields 10 , 11 . Here, we analyse these claims at scale across six decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from six large-scale datasets, together with a new quantitative metric—the CD index 12 —that characterizes how papers and patents change networks of citations in science and technology. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics 1 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 – 17 . Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of previous knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the ‘shoulders of giants’ view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology. A decline in disruptive science and technology over time is reported, representing a substantive shift in science and technology, which is attributed in part to the reliance on a narrower set of existing knowledge.

A flood of coronavirus research swept websites and journals this year. It changed how and what scientists study, a Nature analysis shows. A flood of coronavirus research swept websites and journals this year. It changed how and what scientists study, a Nature analysis shows.

AbstractObjectivesWomen remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations.DesignRetrospective observational study.Data sourcesTitles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017.Main outcome measuresAnalysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as “novel” or “excellent.” For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field.ResultsArticles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples.ConclusionsClinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.

The need to align investments in health research and development (R&D) with public health demands is one of the most pressing global public health challenges. We aim to provide a comprehensive description of available data sources, propose a set of indicators for monitoring the global landscape of health R&D, and present a sample of country indicators on research inputs (investments), processes (clinical trials), and outputs (publications), based on data from international databases. Total global investments in health R&D (both public and private sector) in 2009 reached US$240 billion. Of the US$214 billion invested in high-income countries, 60% of health R&D investments came from the business sector, 30% from the public sector, and about 10% from other sources (including private non-profit organisations). Only about 1% of all health R&D investments were allocated to neglected diseases in 2010. Diseases of relevance to high-income countries were investigated in clinical trials seven-to-eight-times more often than were diseases whose burden lies mainly in low-income and middle-income countries. This report confirms that substantial gaps in the global landscape of health R&D remain, especially for and in low-income and middle-income countries. Too few investments are targeted towards the health needs of these countries. Better data are needed to improve priority setting and coordination for health R&D, ultimately to ensure that resources are allocated to diseases and regions where they are needed the most. The establishment of a global observatory on health R&D, which is being discussed at WHO, could address the absence of a comprehensive and sustainable mechanism for regular global monitoring of health R&D.

Systematic reviews (SRs) are time and resource intensive, requiring approximately 1 year from protocol registration to submission for publication. Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR. We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The outcomes were time to complete the SR, time to complete individual SR tasks, facilitators and barriers to progress, and peer reviewer feedback on the SR manuscript. Times to completion were analyzed quantitatively (minutes and calendar days); facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework; and peer reviewer feedback was analyzed quantitatively and narratively. The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. Individual SR tasks ranged from 16 person-minutes (deduplication of search results) to 461 person-minutes (data extraction). The least time-consuming SR tasks were obtaining full-texts, searches, citation analysis, data synthesis, and deduplication. The most time-consuming tasks were data extraction, write-up, abstract screening, full-text screening, and risk of bias. Facilitators and barriers mapped onto the following domains: knowledge; skills; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; and technology and infrastructure. Two sets of peer reviewer feedback were received on the manuscript: the first included 34 comments requesting changes, 17 changes were made, requiring 173 person-minutes; the second requested 13 changes, and eight were made, requiring 121 person-minutes. A small and experienced systematic reviewer team using Systematic Review Automation tools who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks.

[...]incoherent government messaging and reversals in recommendations on the basis of newly emerging evidence, for example on whether masks are protective against transmission, can be misconstrued as incompetence. Comparisons have been drawn between solid leadership based on clear communication, empathy, and alignment of science and politics, such as that shown by New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern or German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and shambolic, self-serving, and sometimes deliberately misleading reactions, such as those of US President Donald Trump or Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Immediate, coordinated action is needed from the global political, corporate, and scientific community to maintain the integrity and credibility of professional expertise and rebuild public trust.

There is growing concern that poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting contribute to the frequent failure of pre-clinical animal studies to translate into treatments for human disease. In 2010, the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were introduced to help improve reporting standards. They were published in PLOS Biology and endorsed by funding agencies and publishers and their journals, including PLOS, Nature research journals, and other top-tier journals. Yet our analysis of papers published in PLOS and Nature journals indicates that there has been very little improvement in reporting standards since then. This suggests that authors, referees, and editors generally are ignoring guidelines, and the editorial endorsement is yet to be effectively implemented.