Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19–related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.

Acupuncture has become popular and widely practiced in many countries around the world. Despite the large amount of acupuncture-related literature that has been published, broader trends in the prevalence and scope of acupuncture research remain underexplored. The current study quantitatively analyzes trends in acupuncture research publications in the past 20 years. A bibliometric approach was used to search PubMed for all acupuncture-related research articles including clinical and animal studies. Inclusion criteria were articles published between 1995 and 2014 with sufficient information for bibliometric analyses. Rates and patterns of acupuncture publication within the 20 year observational period were estimated, and compared with broader publication rates in biomedicine. Identified eligible publications were further analyzed with respect to study type/design, clinical condition addressed, country of origin, and journal impact factor. A total of 13,320 acupuncture-related publications were identified using our search strategy and eligibility criteria. Regression analyses indicated an exponential growth in publications over the past two decades, with a mean annual growth rate of 10.7%. This compares to a mean annual growth rate of 4.5% in biomedicine. A striking trend was an observed increase in the proportion of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), from 7.4% in 1995 to 20.3% in 2014, exceeding the 4.5% proportional growth of RCTs in biomedicine. Over the 20 year period, pain was consistently the most common focus of acupuncture research (37.9% of publications). Other top rankings with respect to medical focus were arthritis, neoplasms/cancer, pregnancy or labor, mood disorders, stroke, nausea/vomiting, sleep, and paralysis/palsy. Acupuncture research was conducted in 60 countries, with the top 3 contributors being China (47.4%), United States (17.5%), and United Kingdom (8.2%). Retrieved articles were published mostly in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals with impact factors ranging between 0.7 and 2.8 in the top 20 journals, followed by journals specializing in neuroscience, pain, anesthesia/analgesia, internal medicine and comprehensive fields. Acupuncture research has grown markedly in the past two decades, with a 2-fold higher growth rate than for biomedical research overall. Both the increases in the proportion of RCTs and the impact factor of journals support that the quality of published research has improved. While pain was a consistently dominant research focus, other topics gained more attention during this time period. These findings provide a context for analyzing strengths and gaps in the current state of acupuncture research, and for informing a comprehensive strategy for further advancing the field.

Electronic waste (e-waste) has been widely studied by scholars all over the world, but the research topics and development trends in this field are still unclear. This study aimed to explore the status quo, hot topics, and future prospects in the field of e-waste. Data of publications were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. We used CiteSpace V, Histcite, and VOSviewer to analyze literature information. A total of 2800 papers in e-waste research were identified, and the number of publications increased rapidly after 2004. Six thousand five hundred seventy-three authors participated in the e-waste research, but 70.01% of the authors published only 1 article. The most productive country in this field was China (1146 publications), and the most productive institution was the Chinese Academy of Sciences (370 publications). The Waste Management (225 publications) was the most productive journal, and Environment Science & Technology (9704 co-citations) was the most co-cited journal. The main hot topics in e-waste field were management and recycling of e-waste in developing countries, health risk assessment after exposure to organic pollutants, degradation and recovery of waste metal materials, and impact of heavy metals on children’s health. The frontier topic was degradation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world in different ways. Not only are people’s lives and livelihoods affected, but the virus has also affected people’s lifestyles. In the research sector, there have been significant changes, and new research is coming very strongly in the related fields of virology and epidemiology. Similar trends were observed after the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) episodes of 2003 and 2012, respectively. Analyzing 20 years of published scientific papers, this article points out the highlights of coronavirus-related research. Significant progress is observed in the past research related to virology, epidemiology, infectious diseases among others. However, in research linked to public health, its governance, technology, and risk communication there seem to be gap areas. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) global research road map has identified social science-related research as a priority area, more focus needs to be given in the upcoming days for multi, cross and trans-disciplinary research related to public health and disaster risk reduction.

Registry-based randomized controlled trials are defined as pragmatic trials that use registries as a platform for case records, data collection, randomization, and follow-up. Recently, the application of registry-based randomized controlled trials has attracted increasing attention in health research to address comparative effectiveness research questions in real-world settings, mainly due to their low cost, enhanced generalizability of findings, rapid consecutive enrollment, and the potential completeness of follow-up for the reference population, when compared with conventional randomized effectiveness trials. However several challenges of registry-based randomized controlled trials have to be taken into consideration, including registry data quality, ethical issues, and methodological challenges. In this article, we summarize the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research related to registry-based randomized controlled trials.

The push for rapid and open publishing could take off — although financial pressures lie ahead: part 4 in a series on science after the pandemic. The push for rapid and open publishing could take off — although financial pressures lie ahead: part 4 in a series on science after the pandemic.

The 2013 Breast Cancer Campaign gap analysis established breast cancer research priorities without a specific focus on surgical research or the role of surgeons on breast cancer research. This Review aims to identify opportunities and priorities for research in breast surgery to complement the 2013 gap analysis. To identify these goals, research-active breast surgeons met and identified areas for breast surgery research that mapped to the patient pathway. Areas included diagnosis, neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, adjuvant therapy, and attention to special groups (eg, those receiving risk-reducing surgery). Section leads were identified based on research interests, with invited input from experts in specific areas, supported by consultation with members of the Association of Breast Surgery and Independent Cancer Patients' Voice groups. The document was iteratively modified until participants were satisfied that key priorities for surgical research were clear. Key research gaps included issues surrounding overdiagnosis and treatment; optimising treatment options and their selection for neoadjuvant therapies and subsequent surgery; reducing rates of re-operations for breast-conserving surgery; generating evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction, and mechanisms for assessing novel interventions; establishing optimal axillary management, especially post-neoadjuvant treatment; and defining and standardising indications for risk-reducing surgery. We propose strategies for resolving these knowledge gaps. Surgeons are ideally placed for a central role in breast cancer research and should foster a culture of engagement and participation in research to benefit patients and health-care systems. Development of infrastructure and surgical research capacity, together with appropriate allocation of research funding, is needed to successfully address the key clinical and translational research gaps that are highlighted in this Review within the next two decades.

We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.

The convergence of marine sciences and medical studies has the potential for substantial advances in healthcare. This study uses bibliometric and topic modeling studies to map the progression of research themes from 2000 to 2023, with an emphasis on the interdisciplinary subject of marine and medical sciences. Building on the global publication output at the interface between marine and medical sciences and using the Hierarchical Dirichlet Process, we discovered dominating research topics during three periods, emphasizing shifts in research focus and development trends. Our data show a significant rise in publication output, indicating a growing interest in using marine bioresources for medical applications. The paper identifies two main areas of active research, “natural product biochemistry” and “trace substance and genetics”, both with great therapeutic potential. We used social network analysis to map the collaborative networks and identify the prominent scholars and institutions driving this research and development progress. Our study indicates important paths for research policy and R&D management operating at the crossroads of healthcare innovation and marine sciences. It also underscores the significance of quantitative foresight methods and interdisciplinary teams in identifying and interpreting future scientific convergences and breakthroughs.