What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?

Behind the scenes with genomics researchers

Although lab-coat genomics scientists are highly skilled and involved in pioneering work, few studies have examined their perceptions on what they do, and how they relate with others in interdisciplinary work. Recognizing that gap, we were curious to talk with scientists about their current work and positionalities related to the use of genomics for bioremediation. Using unstructured open-ended interviews and thematic analysis, we interviewed researchers with diverse genomics-related expertise. Emerging topics were grouped into two broad categories akin to Bronfenbrenner's nested developmental model: microsystem matters, comprising technical advances, barriers, and localized concerns; and macrosystem matters, exploring wider reflections and the philosophies of genomics and society. At the microsystem level, findings revealed differences of opinion about methodological steps, but there was agreement about the incompleteness of databases and the absence of established reference values. These two problems may not only impact a project's progress but also the ability to gauge success, affecting budgeting, human resource needs, and overall stress. At the macrosystem level, scientists voiced concerns about how different social groups perceive and accept genomics applications, as those tend to be viewed by lay persons as genetic interventions. Another focus was on how academic publication slows progress because it is orientated toward positive results while gaps in knowledge could be filled by publishing negative results or methodological barriers. This study underscores scientists' self-awareness within the genomics discipline, acknowledging how their beliefs and biases shape research outcomes. It illuminates critical reflections essential for navigating societal and scientific landscapes in genomics research.

Association of ResearchGate research influence score with other metrics of top cited sports biomechanics scholars

Study aim: Scientific networking sites are increasingly popular in connecting researchers and providing influence metrics, however the research on measures like the ResearchGate Research Influence Score (RG RIS) are limited. This study documented the associations between RG RIS, usage, and prestige metrics from Google Scholar (GS), RG, and Scopus for top cited scientists in sports biomechanics.

Material and methods: Research usage (total citations: C), prestige (Hirsch index: h), and RG RIS metrics were extracted from GS, RG, and Scopus for the top sixty cited scholars that used either the label “’73ports biomechanics” or “sport biomechanics” in their GS Profile.

Results: RG RIS was strongly correlated (r = 0.796–0.895) with all usage and prestige metrics. There were very strong correlations among the three citation metrics (r = 0.929–0.967) and among the three h indexes (r = 0.960–0.974).

Conclusions: The recent RG RIS does not provide unique scientific influence information about sport(s) biomechanics researchers beyond common citation metrics. The RG RIS was strongly associated with total citation and h-index values from GS, RG, and Scopus for top 60 cited sport(s) biomechanics researchers based on GS Profiles. The scientific usage and prestige factors previously reported in bibliometric research was supported by very strong associations among the three C and among the three h index values from these two scientific networking and one database service.

High-Impact Clinical Studies That Fomented New Developments in Anesthesia: History of Achievements, 1966-2015

The aim of this work is to identify the most influential initial clinical studies that fomented important developments in anesthesiology over the past 50 years. Studies fomenting new development can be selected using vastly different approaches and, therefore, might provide diverse outcomes. In the present work, two basic aspects of study assessments – the stage of development (eg, generation of idea, preclinical studies, clinical trials) and the method of selection (eg, committee vote, various types of citation analysis, method of finding the invention disclosure) – were chosen according to the following model. The stage of development: the initial clinical studies demonstrating the basic advantage of an innovation for providing anesthesia. The method: a combination of two factors – the study priority in terms of the time of its publication and the degree of its acknowledgement in the form of citation impact; the time of study publication was regarded as a primary factor, but only if the study’s citation count was =/>20. The initial high-impact studies were selected for 16 drug-related topics (ketamine, isoflurane, etomidate, propofol, midazolam in anesthesia, vecuronium, alfentanil, atracurium, sevoflurane, sufentanil, rocuronium, desflurane, ropivacaine, remifentanil, dexmedetomidine in anesthesia, and sugammadex), and 9 technique-related topics (ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block, capnography in anesthesia, target-controlled intravenous anesthesia, pulse oximetry in anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography in anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and bispectral index). Twenty-five studies were designated the first high-impact studies (one for each topic); 16 are drug-related and 9 are technique-related. Half of the first high-impact studies had a citation count of =/>100, (range: 100 to 555). The citation count of the other half of high-impact studies did not reach the 100-citation threshold (range: 41 to 97). If a selected first high-impact study had a citation count <100, a next-on-timeline, additional study with citation count =/>100 was also selected; (range: 100 to 344). The present results show that an initial high-impact clinical study on a new development in anesthesiology can be determined and that related citations usually vary from one hundred to five hundred.

Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed!

This paper comments on the phenomenon of “publish or perish” associated with the current information explosion and its awful consequence: the curse that hangs over academia which dooms it to publish incessantly irrelevant and pointless documents. The overabundance of publications is not justified and is not even necessary in many contexts for personal promotion, and even less for the advancement of science. Therefore, the current role of scientific journals is highly questionable that its aim could be misleading. Huge numbers of articles are published, but they are not read because the aim is principally “publish for publish,” or publication for its own sake. The standard corrective tool for improving scientific communication—peer review—cannot function adequately, and biases and perversions are introduced which undermine society’s confidence in the scientific enterprise. A dark landscape unfurls itself across the world of scientific information, forcing us to question and improve its current state. Methodologically this paper goes halfway between the essay and the review trying to provoke engaged and useful controversy.