Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing

While scientific researchers often aim for high productivity, prioritizing the quantity of publications may come at the cost of time and effort dedicated to individual research. It is thus important to examine the relationship between productivity and disruption for individual researchers. Here, we show that with the increase in the number of published papers, the average citation per paper will be higher yet the mean disruption of papers will be lower. In addition, we find that the disruption of scientists' papers may decrease when they are highly productive in a given year. The disruption of papers in each year is not determined by the total number of papers published in the author's career, but rather by the productivity of that particular year. Besides, more productive authors also tend to give references to recent and high-impact research. Our findings highlight the potential risks of pursuing productivity and aim to encourage more thoughtful career planning among scientists.

Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine

The extent to which basic medical research is translated into clinical practice is a topic of interest to all stakeholders. In this study, we assessed the clinical translation intensity of papers published by scientists who have made outstanding contributions to the field of basic medicine (Lasker Prize winners for Basic Medical Research). Approximate Potential for Translation (APT), Translational science scores (TS), and Citations by clinical research (Cited by Clin.) were analyzed as dependent variables. A traditional citation indicator was used as a reference (relative citation ratio, RCR). In order to examine the correlation between these different indicators and the characteristics of the paper, the author, and the institution. we used nonparametric tests, Spearman correlations, ordinal least squares regressions (OLS), quantile regressions, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression methods. We found that among the basic medical research papers published by Lasker Basic Medicine Award winners, (1) 20% are cited by clinical research; 11.6% of the papers were more valuable for clinical research than basic research; 12.8% have a probability of more than 50% to be cited in future clinical studies; (2) Spearman correlations were conducted among APT, TS, Cited by Clin., RCR, and all of the other continuous variables. There is a significant, positive, low to moderate correlation between APT, TS, and Cited by Clin (APT and TS: r = 0.549, p < 0.01; APT and Cited by Clin: r = 0.530, p < 0.01; TS and Cited by Clin: r = 0.383, p < 0.01). However, the relationship between RCR and the three indicators of clinical translation intensity was not consistent. APT was positively correlated with RCR (r = 0.553, p < 0.01). Cited by Clin. is weakly positively correlated with RCR (r = 0.381, p < 0.01). There is almost no correlation between TS and RCR (r = 0.184, p < 0.01). (3) Publication age, primary research paper, multidisciplinary science, number of disciplines, authors, institutions, funded projects, references, length of the title, length of paper, physical age, gender, nationality, institutional type, Nobel Prize have a significant relationship with 1 to 3 types of clinical translation intensity measures. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine, we came to the following conclusions: the three indicators, APT, TS and Cited by Clin., measured the clinical translation intensity of the papers from different perspectives. They are both related to each other and have their own characteristics. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine, characteristics at the paper, winner, and institution level significantly correlated with the measures of clinical translation intensity. Gender effect on the clinical translation intensity of papers was confirmed. Traditional citation-based indicators and translational-focused indicators measure academic impact and clinical impact respectively. There is a certain degree of disconnect between them. Two types of indicators should be used in combination in future assessments of basic medical research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-023-04634-4.

Commentary on Highly Successful Female Educational Psychologists: Equity and Intersectionality in Success Definitions

Despite the international focus on validation and success indicators of academic work across disciplines, examples of accomplished educational psychologists and their personal stories have been limited in the literature. Prinz et al. (2021) interviewed Five Highly Successful Female Educational Psychologists and offered a content analysis of their success stories, including the academics' strategies and trademark characteristics. In this Commentary, I expand on their findings in light of equity and intersectionality perspectives on academic success. I problematise academic success indicators (publication records and impact) with reference to literature on gender disparities in publication metrics and lack of inclusivity in generic measures of academic success. I outline how individual success narratives intersect with our collective responsibility for higher wellbeing and professional recognition of all colleagues. I argue that the equity and intersectionality perspectives are fundamental to inclusive narratives of success and highlight the power structures that have historically impeded access of diverse and minority scholars to top academic positions. I conclude with four recommendations for addressing the persistent structures of inequities in academic career opportunities.

Predicting the future impact of Computer Science researchers: Is there a gender bias?

The advent of large-scale bibliographic databases and powerful prediction algorithms led to calls for data-driven approaches for targeting scarce funds at researchers with high predicted future scientific impact. The potential side-effects and fairness implications of such approaches are unknown, however. Using a large-scale bibliographic data set of N = 111,156 Computer Science researchers active from 1993 to 2016, I build and evaluate a realistic scientific impact prediction model. Given the persistent under-representation of women in Computer Science, the model is audited for disparate impact based on gender. Random forests and Gradient Boosting Machines are used to predict researchers’ h-index in 2010 from their bibliographic profiles in 2005. Based on model predictions, it is determined whether the researcher will become a high-performer with an h-index in the top-25% of the discipline-specific h-index distribution. The models predict the future h-index with an accuracy of $$R^2 = 0.875$$ R 2 = 0.875 and correctly classify 91.0% of researchers as high-performers and low-performers. Overall accuracy does not vary strongly across researcher gender. Nevertheless, there is indication of disparate impact against women. The models under-estimate the true h-index of female researchers more strongly than the h-index of male researchers. Further, women are 8.6% less likely to be predicted to become high-performers than men. In practice, hiring, tenure, and funding decisions that are based on model predictions risk to perpetuate the under-representation of women in Computer Science.