Academic institutions in the United States and Canada ranked according to research productivity in the field of conservation biology

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gendered research productivity and its correlates

Female researchers may have experienced more difficulties than their male counterparts since the COVID-19 outbreak because of gendered housework and childcare. To test it, we constructed a unique dataset that connects 15,280,382 scholarly publications and their 11,828,866 authors retrieved from Microsoft Academic Graph data between 2016 and 2020 to various national characteristics from LinkedIn, Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, and Covid-19 Community Mobility Reports from Google. Using the dataset, this study estimated how much the proportion of female authors in academic journals on a global scale changed in 2020 (net of recent yearly trends). We observed a decrease in research productivity for female researchers in 2020, mostly as first authors, followed by last author position. We also identified various factors that amplified the gender gap by dividing the authors' backgrounds into individual, organizational and national characteristics. Female researchers were more vulnerable when they were in their mid-career, affiliated to the least influential organizations, and more importantly from less gender-equal countries with higher mortality and restricted mobility as a result of COVID-19. Our findings suggest that female researchers were not necessarily excluded from but were marginalized in research since the COVID-19 outbreak and we discuss its policy implications.

Mentorship, equity, and research productivity: lessons from a pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic is more fully exposing ubiquitous economic and social inequities that pervade conservation science. In this time of prolonged stress on members of the research community, primary investigators or project leaders (PLs) have a unique opportunity to adapt their programs to jointly create more equitable and productive research environments for their teams. Institutional guidance for PLs pursuing field and laboratory work centers on the physical safety of individuals while in the lab or field, but largely ignores the vast differences in how team members may be experiencing the pandemic. Strains on mental, physical, and emotional health; racial trauma; familial responsibilities; and compulsory productivity resources, such as high-speed internet, quiet work spaces, and support are unequally distributed across team members. The goal of this paper is to summarize the shifting dynamics of leadership and mentorship during the coronavirus pandemic and highlight opportunities for increasing equity in conservation research at the scale of the project team. Here, we (1) describe how the pandemic differentially manifests inequity on project teams, particularly for groups that have been structurally excluded from conservation science, (2) consider equitable career advancement during the coronavirus pandemic, and (3) offer suggestions for PLs to provide mentorship that prioritizes equity and wellbeing during and beyond the pandemic. We aim to support PLs who have power and flexibility in how they manage research, teaching, mentoring, consulting, outreach, and extension activities so that individual team members' needs are met with compassion and attention to equity.

Peer-reviewed scientific contributions from Canadian zoos and aquariums

With the widespread loss of biodiversity, zoos and aquariums are striving to become leaders in biodiversity conservation and research. Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) is a nonprofit organization created to represent its members, including as agencies of conservation and science. However, the contribution of CAZA members to conservation and science has not been quantified. We used research productivity in the form of peer-reviewed publications to systematically quantify biodiversity conservation engagement by CAZA institutions. We extracted publications from the ISI Web of Science database and found that the annual number of publications increased over time. CAZA members published most in the area of veterinary science, with few publications in biodiversity conservation. Organization age, research-orientated mission statements, and financial assets were significant predictors of research productivity. CAZA institutions also published significantly less ([Formula: see text] = 12.5 ± 5.52 SE) than members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums ([Formula: see text] = 24.27 ± 5.08 SE), based in the United States. Zoos and aquariums are important resources in mitigating biodiversity loss, and are increasing their research output in this area. Nonetheless, only a small proportion of publications were in biodiversity conservation, and the majority of all publications occurred in zoo-centric journals.

Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research

Modern zoos and aquariums aspire to contribute significantly to biodiversity conservation and research. For example, conservation research is a key accreditation criterion of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). However, no studies to date have quantified this contribution. We assessed the research productivity of 228 AZA members using scientific publications indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database between 1993 and 2013 (inclusive). AZA members published 5175 peer-reviewed manuscripts over this period, with publication output increasing over time. Most publications were in the zoology and veterinary science subject areas, and articles classified as “biodiversity conservation” by WoS averaged 7% of total publications annually. From regression analyses, AZA organizations with larger financial assets generally published more, but research-affiliated mission statements were also associated with increased publication output. A strong publication record indicates expertise and expands scientific knowledge, enhancing organizational credibility. Institutions aspiring for higher research productivity likely require a dedicated research focus and adequate institutional support through research funding and staffing. We recommend future work build on our results by exploring links between zoo and aquarium research productivity and conservation outcomes or uptake.

Departmental h-Index: Evidence for Publishing Less?

Purpose

The h-index is an established method for determining an individual faculty member's impact on the scientific literature. The purpose of this study was to measure and describe over time the combined h-index of a large university medical imaging department.

Materials and Methods

All faculty members from the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, were identified from administrative records for 6 separate years between 2000-2014. Individual members' and the departmental h-index were calculated using citation data from the Scopus database. Descriptive univariate statistics were reported. Factors contributing to the change in departmental h-index over time were assessed using linear regression analysis.

Results

The number of faculty members increased from 117 in 2000 to 186 in 2014. The departmental h-index increased from 48 in 2000 to 142 in 2014. During this time period, the median h-index for faculty members increased from 4 (interquartile range 2-8) to 10 (interquartile range 5-19). Regression analysis revealed that for every additional staff member, the departmental h-index increased by 1.4 (standard error = 0.1, P < .01), whereas, by increasing the median h-index of members by 1 the departmental h-index increased by 15.7 (standard error = 0.6, P < .01).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that to increase a department's h-index, it is important to foster impactful research from within the faculty ranks of the department. The h-index of academic radiology departments is a meaningful tool that allows for evaluation from within and against other academic centres.