bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–10–25
29 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Ann Glob Health. 2026 ;92(1): 104
      Importance: International collaboration is a critical component of biomedical and behavioral health research, but recent trends in its extent and impact in research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest funder of health research, are not well characterized. Objective: To characterize the extent and scientific impact of international collaboration in NIH-funded research from 2014 to 2023. Design, setting, and participants: Bibliometric analysis of NIH-funded publications from 2014 to 2023 using the InCites Analytics database (Clarivate, London, UK). Main outcomes and measures: Publication counts and author country affiliations for NIH-funded publications from 2014 to 2023 and scientific impact measured by Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) for publications in 2023. Results: The average annual number of NIH-funded publications from 2014 to 2023 was 112,633; this declined by 25.1% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023, 68.1% of publications had U.S.-affiliated authors only, 27.4% had both U.S.- and non-U.S.-affiliated authors, and 4.5% had non-U.S.-affiliated authors only. Overall, 31.9% of NIH-funded publications had non-U.S.-affiliated coauthors in 2023, a decline from a peak of 34.1% in 2018. Although CNCI values are not directly comparable across groups, publications with both U.S.- and non-U.S.-affiliated authors had a higher scientific impact (CNCI = 1.48) than those with U.S. authors only (1.32) or non-U.S. authors only (1.44). Conclusions and relevance: International collaboration is a substantial component of NIH-supported research and is associated with higher citation impact. Nearly one-third of NIH-funded publications included non-U.S.-affiliated coauthors, and these publications demonstrated higher citation impact than those with U.S.-affiliated authors only, supporting the importance of global collaboration in biomedical research.
    Keywords:  National Institutes of Health; bibliometrics; citation impact; global health research; international research collaboration; research funding; scientific collaboration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.5508
  2. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2026 Oct 23.
       BACKGROUND: Understanding the publication rates and citation patterns of conference abstracts is critical for program committees and investigators alike. However, the downstream scholarly outcome of conference abstracts remains poorly characterized. We hypothesized that across contemporary US trauma-related scientific meetings, a substantial proportion of conference abstracts would not progress to peer-reviewed publications, and that publication rates and citation patterns would vary by presentation format and conference.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of abstracts presented at four major US trauma surgery conferences from 2017 to 2019. We identified peer-reviewed manuscripts associated with conference abstracts via Google Scholar and PubMed. We collected presentation format, publishing journal, 2024 journal impact factor, and citation count. A cohort of directly submitted peer-reviewed manuscripts was also analyzed. Mixed-effects Poisson regression models assessed the association between presentation and citation counts, adjusting for publication timing.
    RESULTS: Of 1,157 abstracts, 762 (66%) were published as peer-reviewed manuscripts. Most manuscripts were published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (JTACS) (55%), with 5 in journals with a higher-impact factor than JTACS. On regression analysis, abstracts presented as oral presentations, and published in journals with an impact factor higher than JTACS, were associated with a greater number of citations. When comparing manuscripts presented as abstracts to directly submitted peer-reviewed manuscripts, abstract presentation was associated with 22% more citations (incidence rate ratio: 1.22; 95% CI [1.16-1.29]; p<0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional study of four trauma societies found that approximately a third of presented abstracts did not progress to peer-reviewed publication, with publication rates varying by conference and presentation format. Exploratory analyses found that among those published in JTACS, published manuscripts originating from presented abstracts demonstrated a modestly higher citation count compared with directly submitted manuscripts. Our findings highlight an opportunity to better understand how conference time and investigator effort translate into downstream scholarly output.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiological; Level IV.
    Keywords:  Abstract; citations; conference; impact; presentation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000005188
  3. Can Urol Assoc J. 2026 Oct;20(10): 356-363
       INTRODUCTION: The increasing entry of women into urology underscores the need to evaluate academic representation and characterize ongoing disparities within the specialty. This study provides a comprehensive global assessment of gender representation in urologic literature over time by study design, journal type, and geographic region.
    METHODS: All PubMed database abstracts under "Urology"[MeSH] or "Urology" (January 2002 to January 2024) were evaluated. Authorship position, institutional affiliation country, and journal name were extracted. Descriptive statistics and inferential tests were performed to assess gender-based differences in publication characteristics through validated name-to-gender matching tools.
    RESULTS: A total of 130 621 publications comprising 885 343 author names were included, of which 21.7% were identified as women. The proportion of women authors increased significantly from 11.4% in 2002 to 26.3% in 2024 (p<0.001). Overall, the number of women in senior authorship positions (14.8%) remains lower than in first-authorship roles (21.6%). The lowest representation of overall women authors was from African institutions (15.3%), whereas the highest was from European institutions (27.3%). Women published less proportionally than men across all study designs, particularly in interventional research (18.5%) and case reports (17.2%). First and senior women authors had higher odds of publishing in predatory journals compared with non-predatory journals (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-1.24; AOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14-1.28, respectively).
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress, substantial gender disparities persist in authorship in urology research, particularly in senior authorship roles. This global bibliometric analysis highlights the need to better understand the barriers that limit female representation in urologic publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9644
  4. Cureus. 2026 Sep;18(9): e116515
      Abstracts of academic publications are central instruments of scholarly communication to summarize research findings. In addition, they can signal authors' stance and evaluation. This study examined how small markers of feeling and stance appear in biomedical abstracts, focusing on expressive punctuation marks and subjective adjectives. We analyzed 23,621,448 PubMed abstracts from journal articles published by 2026, identifying selected expressive punctuation marks, such as "!" and "?", and subjective participial adjectives, such as "interested" and "surprising". We then explored their temporal patterns and associations with country of affiliation, authorship, and journal impact factor. We found that these terms were uncommon but far from absent. Question marks appeared in 0.64% of abstracts and exclamation marks in 0.03%. Several markers of curiosity, enthusiasm, and surprise increased over recent decades. Abstracts with East Asian affiliations generally contained fewer such terms, whereas exclamatory usage was most common among abstracts with affiliations in India, and a question mark and subjective adjectives were more common among abstracts with Western affiliations. Abstracts from articles with fewer authors were generally more likely to include expressive punctuation marks and subjective adjectives. Abstracts with inferred female authors, especially inferred female last authors, were more likely to contain "!", "?", "interested", and "surprised". Conversely, "excited", "exciting", "interesting", and "surprising" were more common in abstracts with inferred male authors. Exclamation marks, question marks, "interested", and "interesting" were less prevalent in high-impact journals, whereas "shocked" and "surprising" were more prevalent in these journals. These findings suggest that subjective descriptions in scientific writing can reflect broader norms of scholarly communication. Such markers may serve as prompts for considering how abstracts frame novelty, uncertainty, and importance, thereby helping improve scholarly communication.
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; communication; life science; medicine; publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.116515
  5. J Med Libr Assoc. 2026 Oct 01. 114(4): 343-358
       Objective: This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research publications utilizing the All of Us Research Program dataset to characterize publication trends, collaboration networks, key research topics, and compliance with All of Us publication and presentation policies through December 2024.
    Methods: A total of 561 publication titles were collected from the All of Us Publications Directory. Titles were then searched across Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed, with WoS (475 publications identified) selected as the primary source for analysis. Productivity metrics, including publication growth, journal distribution, author productivity, and word frequency, were analyzed using Biblioshiny. Co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence networks were visualized in VOSviewer to reveal collaboration structures and emerging research themes.
    Results: Among the 475 analyzed publications, 2,803 authors were identified across 211 journals. The annual number of All of Us publications increased by 82.45% from 2015 to 2024. Major research themes included epidemiology, chronic conditions, genomics, and health disparities, with dermatology emerging as a particularly active area. Network analysis revealed strong intra-institutional ties and some cross-institutional collaborations, primarily among R1 universities.
    Conclusions: This bibliometric study demonstrates a rapid rise in scholarly activity leveraging the All of Us dataset, characterized by concentrated author and institutional engagement. These findings highlight both the growing impact of the All of Us dataset and opportunities to foster broader collaborations and diversify participation across the research community.
    Keywords:  All of Us; Biblioshiny; VOSviewer; bibliometric analysis; collaboration network; dataset utilization; policy compliance; publication trend
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2346
  6. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2026 Jul 27. pii: 836. [Epub ahead of print]21(1):
       BACKGROUND: This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to elucidate research trends, collaborative networks, and the thematic evolution of predictors for coronary slow flow (CSF).
    METHODS: Relevant literature published between 1977 and 2026 was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. Bibliometric analysis was conducted utilizing VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R 4.3.3.
    RESULTS: A total of 366 articles were included, indicating an upward trend in research output. China (118 articles), Turkey (65), and the USA (35) emerged as the leading countries. Prominent institutions included China Medical University (29 articles), Capital Medical University (20), and Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (14). Influential journals were Circulation (impact factor 41.3, JCR Q1), Circulation Journal (5.8, Q1), and American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology (3.9, Q1). The most prolific author was Wang Yong, with 12 publications and an H-index of 10. Keyword clustering identified three research themes: pathogenesis of CSF, prediction for CSF following percutaneous coronary intervention, and its prognostic implications. Emerging keywords highlighted increasing attention to "endothelial function", "prevalence", "CSF phenomenon", "myocardial infarction" and "reserve".
    CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a bibliometric overview of key trends and future directions in the field of CSF predictors, emphasizing the growing focus on this area. Future research is anticipated to concentrate on risk stratification and mechanism-targeted intervention strategies.
    CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric Analysis; Collaborative Networks; Coronary Slow Flow; Predictors; Research Trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-026-04638-0
  7. Crit Care Med. 2026 Oct 21.
       OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess trends in septic shock publications by country income and author gender.
    DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles indexed with "septic shock" between January 2014 and December 2024.
    STUDY SELECTION: All peer-reviewed publication types were eligible. Conference abstracts and non-peer-reviewed material were excluded.
    DATA EXTRACTION: Bibliographic data, first and last author affiliations, country income level (World Bank classification: low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] and high-income countries [HICs]), and journal prestige (SCImago Journal Rank [SJR]) were extracted. Author gender was inferred using the NamSor application programming interface (API).
    DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 10,352 eligible publications, LMIC-affiliated first authors increased over time (+2.13% per year; 95% CI, +1.66 to +2.61; p < 0.001) from 18% in 2014 to 37% in 2024. Women represented 35.6% of first authors and 25.0% of last authors (with around 20% of authors not classifiable by the NamSor API), with higher proportions in LMICs than HICs (p < 0.001) for both first authors (44.5% vs. 32.5%) and last authors (35.2% vs. 21.5%). Gender concordance was more frequent, with female first authors more often paired with female last authors than male first authors (31.7% vs. 21.1%). Cross-income collaborations, especially involving LMIC last authors, remained rare. Articles led by men in HICs were more often published in higher-SJR journals compared with those led by women (p < 0.001), whereas no gender differences were observed among LMIC-affiliated authors.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite encouraging growth in LMIC contributions and female representation, major inequities persist. Strengthening equitable collaborations and supporting underrepresented groups would broaden participation and enhance the global applicability in critical care research.
    Keywords:  authorship; bibliometrics; developing countries; septic shock; sex factors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000007371
  8. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2026 Oct 18. pii: S0301-2115(26)00576-2. [Epub ahead of print]327 115508
       BACKGROUND: The disruption score is a bibliometric tool which measures the degree to which publications develop existing ideas of a given medical specialty or shift the direction toward new horizons via disruptive processes. We used disruption score to rank published works in Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN).
    STUDY DESIGN: OBGYN journal titles indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central were identified and used to pull article abstracts from PubMed published from 1900 to 2021. A disruption score (-1 to +1) was assigned based on each publication's citation patterns. Articles with a negative score were considered developmental works, which often build upon existing ideas. Positive scoring articles were considered disruptive, often introducing innovative ideas. The top 100 highest scoring articles were identified across 3 categories: top cited, top disruption score, top developmental score.
    RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 381,677 works in the field of OBGYN. Top papers were drawn most often from American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (53%) and British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (16%). By topic, top cited papers were commonly gynecologically-focused (65% GYN vs 33% OB), as compared to disruptive papers (40% GYN vs 58% OB) and development papers (34% GYN vs 65% OB) (p < 0.005). By study design, top cited papers were observational (40%) and review (31%). Top developmental papers were case report/case series (54%) and observational (17%). Top disruptive papers were observational (37%) and case reports/case series (29%).
    CONCLUSION: The disruption score highlighted an entirely different set of OBGYN articles when compared to citation count alone. The disruption score can be utilized to provide a novel analysis of the rich literary history of OBGYN.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Disruption score; Obstetrics and gynecology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2026.115508
  9. R Soc Open Sci. 2026 Oct 07. 13(10): 260870
      We aimed to generate institution-level data of indicators that may reflect, as proxies, the impact and the research integrity of the authors affiliated with them and that also adjust for institution size and scientific subfields where these authors work. We used the Scopus database to generate institution-level data on top-cited authors (according to a composite citation indicator) and three indicators that may reflect problems with research integrity: the total number of authorships in papers retracted for reasons other than publisher/journal errors, and subfield-adjusted proportions of top-cited authors who have high (>95% percentile) self-citation rates or high (>95% percentile) rates of publications in Scopus-discontinued titles. There was modest overlap among top institutions based on volume and based on number of top-cited authors. However, there was minimal overlap when institutions with the highest proportions of top-cited authors were considered; these included mostly research institutes and tech organizations and only a minority of universities. Institutions with the highest self-citation, discontinuation and retraction penalties clustered in specific countries such as Saudi Arabia, People's Republic of China, Malaysia, Iran, India and Indonesia. The publicly available datasets that we provide allow the exploration of institution-level research assessments that balance high impact against proxies of diverse aspects of research integrity.
    Keywords:  citations; institutions; research assessment; retractions; scientometrics; self-citations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.260870
  10. J Clin Apher. 2026 Oct;41(5): e70196
      Bibliometrics is the quantitative analysis of written publications. Despite the growing clinical and scientific importance of therapeutic apheresis, a comprehensive bibliometric evaluation of the field has not previously been performed. This study aimed to assess the development, collaboration patterns, citation impact, and intellectual structure of therapeutic apheresis research. A descriptive bibliometric study was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) databases. Data were retrieved on July 31, 2026. The search strategy was based on therapeutic apheresis procedures according to guidelines published by the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA). Performance analysis and science mapping were applied. VOSviewer was used for network construction and visualization. A total of 11859, 4706, and 2888 publications were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and WoS, respectively. A high degree of collaboration was observed, with > 80% of publications being multiauthored and > 80% receiving at least one citation. Average citations per publication ranged from 15.15 to 18.83. The Scopus dataset achieved an h-index of 110 and included 45 publications cited at least 200 times. Journal of Clinical Apheresis emerged as the dominant journal in both Scopus and WoS. The cocitation analysis identified 1694 cited references receiving ≥ 5 citations. The most influential references were clinical guidelines and consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Therapeutic apheresis research has evolved into a mature, multidisciplinary, and highly collaborative scientific field. As the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of apheresis research, this study establishes a benchmark against which future advances in the field can be measured.
    Keywords:  bibliography; bibliometrics; blood component removal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.70196
  11. J Med Libr Assoc. 2026 Oct 01. 114(4): 491-498
       Background: This study aimed to benchmark the availability and accuracy of author profiles for 45 faculty members within the Auburn University College of Nursing. Profile availability in the database platforms Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions were analyzed alongside the author-driven platforms ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar to set an understanding for the potential efforts needed for profile curation, publication tracking, and research impact assessments moving forward.
    Case Presentation: Each of the six platforms were manually searched for faculty and name variations alongside both current and past institutional affiliations. All identified profiles were collected. Associated publication counts were recorded and database results were screened for accurate author identification. Among the author-driven platforms, ORCID had the highest adoption rate, with 64% of faculty, while ResearchGate and Google Scholar trailed with 38% and 16% faculty adoption, respectively. Web of Science offered profiles for 82% of faculty; Scopus offered profiles for 80% of faculty, and Dimensions only 53%. However, 53% of the associated publications were misattributed in Web of Science profiles compared to just 1% misattribution in Scopus and none in Dimensions.
    Conclusions: Among our faculty, Scopus offered the most efficient author profile platform, balancing profile availability, minimizing misattribution, and including avenues for early identification of new authors. While largely in line with previous study findings, this effort provided important contextual understandings of profile data availability which can be used to inform research impact assessments and library services supporting author profiles for highlighting scholarly influence.
    Keywords:  Dimensions; Google Scholar; ORCID; ResearchGate; Scopus; Web of Science; author disambiguation; author identifiers; researcher impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2304
  12. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2026 ;13 624162
      Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common malignancy worldwide. Existing treatments are limited by high recurrence rates and drug resistance. Traditional medicine have the potential to be used to treat HCC because of their multi-target and low toxicity properties, however, there is no general review of the state of studies and tendencies. According to Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), this paper has analyzed 1936 English articles and reviews through bibliometric analysis of the data with CiteSpace and Bibliometrix, including publication trends, country/region distribution, the occurrence of keywords, collaboration networks, thematic evolution. The output of literature has been growing exponentially since 2020. The main contributor is China, which plays a central role in international cooperation. An important partner is the United States, and Egypt and France are possible partners. The area of interest is active ingredients, apoptosis modulation, and networking pharmacology. Network pharmacology and molecular docking are fundamental technologies. Emerging frontiers are tumor microenvironment, gut microbiota, lipid metabolism, and NF-κB signaling pathway. NF-κB activation, apoptosis, and angiogenesis regulation are new hotspots. This study systematically elucidates the research status and future directions of traditional medicine in the treatment of HCC, providing a reference for the prevention and treatment of HCC with traditional medicine. However, this study exclusively selected the WoSCC database for analysis, which may have the limitation of not comprehensively covering all research achievements relevant to this field.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; hepatocellular carcinoma; traditional medicine; tumor microenvironment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S624162
  13. J Surg Educ. 2026 Oct 19. pii: S1931-7204(26)00349-1. [Epub ahead of print]83(12): 104217
       OBJECTIVE: Application to orthopedic surgery residency is increasingly competitive and the transition of USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail scoring has increased reliance on research productivity in applicant selection. However, access to research may be shaped by socioeconomic factors. This study evaluated the association between the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and research productivity over a 15-year period spanning residency application through early-career practice.
    DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. ERAS provided permanent ZIP codes and research metrics. Associations were assessed using Spearman's correlation, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
    SETTING: A single large academic U.S. orthopedic surgery residency program.
    PARTICIPANTS: A total of 822 applicants during the 2010 application cycle. Thirty-nine applicants lacked assignable SDI scores, leaving 783 for application-stage analyses; 290 lacked Scopus profiles, leaving 493 for long-term analyses. Profile groups were compared.
    RESULTS: Higher SDI, indicating greater deprivation, was inversely correlated with number of research experiences (p = 0.002) and poster/oral presentations (p = 0.010); both persisted after correction for multiple comparisons (adjusted p = 0.012 and 0.030). SDI was not significantly associated with total application research items (p = 0.064), manuscripts (p = 0.078), or long-term outcomes, including post-ERAS publications (p = 0.472), total publications (p = 0.408), current citation count (p = 0.939), or h-index (p = 0.642). Excluded applicants reported less research at application but did not differ in SDI (p = 0.614).
    CONCLUSIONS: Greater socioeconomic deprivation was associated with fewer research experiences and presentations on residency applications, suggesting reduced access to early research opportunities. These associations may be driven by differences in access to mentorship and financial flexibility to attend conferences, assume unpaid research, and complete research years. Socioeconomic disadvantage may be associated with reduced early academic engagement but was not associated with sustained publication output in this cohort.
    Keywords:  Education; Internship and residency; Orthopedics; Personnel selection; Socioeconomic factors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2026.104217
  14. J Med Libr Assoc. 2026 Oct 01. 114(4): 428-438
       Objective: Publishing initiatives led by academic libraries have grown over the past decade. They are often involved in the development of innovative publishing models and open initiatives, and a number of library publishers have worked in the health sciences. This study aims to assess the current state of library publishing in the health sciences (HS).
    Methods: The Library Publishing Directory survey and Library Publishing Coalition's member directory were accessed to identify active library publishing programs in the U.S. and Canada. Survey responses on disciplinary specialties and top publications were assessed, and individual publisher websites were accessed to inventory HS titles. Journals were checked for whether they were actively publishing and indexed.
    Results: One hundred eighteen survey respondents and 24 additional LPC members were assessed. Twenty-five percent of respondents named an HS subject as a disciplinary specialty, and 20% named an HS title as a top publication. Two hundred seventy-five individual HS titles from 81 different library publishers were identified. Fifty-three percent were journals, 39% open education resources, and 8% monographs. Medicine was the most common field for publications. Seventy-three percent of journals were actively publishing. Of those, 42% were indexed in DOAJ or a major HS database, and just over 10% appeared in PubMed or Scopus.
    Conclusions: Library publishers have a track record of working with a wide variety of HS researchers. Indexing of library-published journals is an area for improvement. HS librarians may be able to collaborate with their institutions' publishing programs to further develop these services and build relationships with researchers.
    Keywords:  Library publishing; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2278
  15. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2026 Oct 17. pii: S0363-0188(26)00198-2. [Epub ahead of print]
       PURPOSE: To evaluate whether residency application publication metrics are associated with early academic career placement (academic employment 3 to 4 years after residency graduation) among diagnostic radiology residents beyond characteristics visible at application, and whether more elaborate metrics improve on a simple publication count.
    METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 551 diagnostic radiology residents from the 2020 and 2021 graduating classes, identified from public U.S. program rosters, with career outcome classified from public post-training profiles. Application-visible variables included publicly inferred sex, top-40 medical school status, and PhD attainment. Three publication metrics measured at the residency-applicant timepoint were compared: total number of residency applicant publications (TNRAP), cumulative publication value units (cPVU), and the Arms Race Control Score (ARCS). Associations and incremental discrimination were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.
    RESULTS: Of 551 residents, 138 (25.0%) were academic. Top-40 medical school status (adjusted OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.37-5.11; p = 0.004), publicly inferred female sex (adjusted OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.23-2.85; p = 0.004), and PhD attainment (adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.79; p = 0.025) were associated with academic placement. TNRAP (adjusted OR 1.091, 95% CI 1.010-1.178; p = 0.026) and cPVU (adjusted OR 1.048, 95% CI 1.003-1.095; p = 0.036) showed small effects; ARCS was not significant (adjusted OR 1.051, 95% CI 0.998-1.107; p = 0.062). The metrics were strongly intercorrelated, and adding any metric produced minimal, nonsignificant improvement in discrimination.
    CONCLUSION: TNRAP and cPVU were modestly associated with early academic placement, but residency application publication metrics added limited incremental discrimination beyond baseline applicant-visible characteristics. Greater complexity did not improve on a simple count.
    Keywords:  Academic career; Bibliometrics; Medical education; Radiology residency; Research productivity; Residency selection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2026.10.007
  16. J Craniofac Surg. 2026 Oct 19.
      In recent years, matched plastic surgery applicants have shown a marked increase in research output, yet it remains unclear whether these academic metrics can predict the tier of the residency program into which an applicant matches. This study utilized machine learning (ML) to evaluate whether a comprehensive set of preresidency publication measures could jointly predict the matched program tier. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, data were aggregated from scientific databases including PubMed and Scopus for 914 applicants who matched into ACGME-accredited integrated plastic surgery residency positions during the 2019 to 2024 National Resident Matching Program cycles. Five ML classifiers (logistic regression, decision tree, k-nearest neighbors, Gaussian naïve Bayes, and multilayer perceptron) were trained to predict program tiers under reputation-based and research-based Doximity ranking schemes. Variables included publication volume (total, first-author, and PRS-journal-specific), subspecialty categorization, and institutional variables. Performance was assessed using accuracy and F1-score (a balanced measure of precision and recall) in binary and tertiary classification settings. Performance was above chance but limited across all schemes. For binary reputation tasks, the best model achieved 61.0% accuracy and 71.4% F1-score. Under the research scheme, performance peaked at 57.5% accuracy and 66.0% F1. For tertiary classification, the best reputation result was 45% accuracy and 44% F1, and the best research result was 43% accuracy and 43% F1. No algorithm consistently outperformed the others. Preresidency publication metrics alone weakly predict the matched residency program tier, and factors beyond research output likely play a more decisive role in residency placement.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; machine learning; medical education; plastic surgery; residency match
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000013525
  17. Front Genet. 2026 ;17 1954843
      The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) tools capable of performing research independently, which we call AI research agents (AIRAs) is likely to significantly impact how science is planned, performed, reviewed, evaluated, and communicated. However, the expected gains in efficiency and productivity from the deployment of AIRAs should not undermine science's epistemic and ethical values, such as accountability, transparency, reproducibility, and rigor. In this paper, we revisit the AI authorship debate in light of the reported capabilities of AIRAs and argue that these tools do not qualify for authorship because they cannot be held morally responsible for their contributions. We also reject the use of the term "scientist" to refer to these tools and argue that human scientists who use AIRAs have three key authorship responsibilities: (1) to carefully oversee and manage AIRAs; (2) to accurately and appropriately disclose AIRAs' contribution to research; and (3) to be accountable for research involving AIRAs by addressing questions and concerns raised by the scientific community and the public. Finally, we consider some related researcher responsibilities that are topics for future research, including the obligation to monitor, audit, and evaluate the performance of AIRAs and the obligation to address the social, economic, legal, and environmental implications of using AIRAs.
    Keywords:  AI agents; accountability; authorship; moral agency; publication ethics; responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2026.1954843
  18. Probl Sotsialnoi Gig Zdravookhranenniiai Istor Med. 2026 Dec 15. 34(0): 1060-1065
       INTRODUCTION: Scientific leadership in medicine places special demands on researchers' emotional regulation due to the high uncertainty of results, competition for grants, and the need to manage interdisciplinary teams.The aim of the study was to identify the relationships between emotional intelligence components and indicators of effective scientific leadership in medical research communities from the perspective of subordinates and senior management of medical organizations.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 78 research group leaders from six research centers: average age 44.2 years, 52% are women. D. V. Lyusin's emotional intelligence methodology was used to assess emotional intelligence. Scientific leadership was assessed using three parameters: 1) expert assessment (consisting of 3 to 15 members of the scientific community-subordinates of the directors-as well as the medical institution's administration (director, deputy director for research, and vice-rector) using the adapted MLQ-5X Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; 2) the average impact factor of the research group's publications over the past two years and the average number of citations (excluding self-citations); 3) the proportion of supported grant applications out of the total number over three years. The frequency of emotional conflicts within the research group was also examined. Statistical methods included comparative analysis (Mann-Whitney U-test), Spearman correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis.
    RESULTS: Significant positive correlations were found between the overall level of emotional intelligence and expert assessments of leadership, both from subordinates and superiors, particularly through the «Managing Your Emotions» and «Empathy» scales. Subordinate assessments have greater predictive power than management assessments.
    CONCLUSION: Emotional intelligence is a significant predictor of scientific leadership in medicine, particularly the ability to manage one's own emotions and recognize the emotions of team members. The role of emotional intelligence in scientific leadership effectiveness is greater for subordinate research staff than for superior management.
    Keywords:  emotional intelligence; medical science; scientific community; scientific leadership; scientific team management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2026-34-s2-1060-1065
  19. Nurse Educ Today. 2026 Oct 13. pii: S0260-6917(26)00495-8. [Epub ahead of print]169 107467
       BACKGROUND: Authorship plays a central role in academic recognition, accountability, and career progression. In doctoral research authorship practices may be shaped by supervisory hierarchies and unequal power relations. While coercive and honorary authorship have been widely discussed, less attention has been paid to situations in which supervisory status itself is treated as justification for authorship.
    CONTEMPORARY ISSUE: This commentary proposes the framing of "publications by proxy" to describe the inappropriate claiming of authorship on doctoral students' outputs based primarily on supervisory position, institutional authority, or access to resources rather than substantive intellectual contribution. Such practices may include expectations of automatic authorship, coercive authorship negotiations, misrepresentation of contributions, and the appropriation of doctoral students' work in publications or media engagement. These dynamics are particularly concerning given the dependence of doctoral candidates on supervisors for progression, mentorship and future opportunities.
    DISCUSSION: We examine how power asymmetries within doctoral education can create conditions in which authorship becomes a site of control rather than a transparent reflection of intellectual labour. Existing authorship frameworks and contribution statements may be insufficient safeguards when doctoral candidates feel unable to question or contest claims made by senior academics. We argue that supervision, mentorship, and institutional oversight do not, in themselves, justify authorship. Practical strategies are proposed to support authorship integrity, including early written agreements, clarification of data ownership and publication processes, and access to independent institutional advice when disputes arise.
    CONCLUSIONS: Treating supervision as a proxy for authorship undermines research integrity, distorts scholarly contribution, and risks normalising exploitative practices within doctoral education. Greater attention to authorship ethics, transparency, and power relations is needed to protect doctoral candidates and preserve trust in academic knowledge production.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Doctoral nursing students; Mentors; Power relations; Research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107467
  20. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2026 Oct 13. pii: S0748-7983(26)00924-8. [Epub ahead of print]53(1): 112305
      The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Journal Ranking Table was discontinued in 2026, ending more than two decades of operation and ushering China's research evaluation system into a new period of transition. The ranking had long shaped journal selection, the recognition of research output, and the career trajectories of early-career researchers. Yet its growing incorporation into graduation requirements, academic promotion, and funding decisions also intensified concerns over excessive dependence on journal labels. In the post-CAS-ranking era, simply replacing the former system with another hierarchy-or abandoning journal-based indicators altogether-may fail to accommodate the heterogeneity of disciplines and research outputs. Future assessment frameworks should therefore use quantitative indicators more cautiously, integrate expert judgment, and place greater emphasis on originality, methodological rigor, reproducibility, and scientific, clinical, and societal contribution. Equally important, transitional arrangements that are transparent, stable, and predictable will be essential to reduce uncertainty for early-career researchers and to foster a more credible and sustainable research evaluation ecosystem.
    Keywords:  Academic incentives; Clinical evidence; Journal classification; Research evaluation; Responsible research assessment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2026.112305
  21. Am J Public Health. 2026 Oct 22. e1-e11
      This study provides a historical overview of 75 years of cancer research in sub-Saharan Africa, challenging narratives that frame cancer as a new or emerging health concern in the region. Drawing on a comprehensive review of scientific publications from key African and international medical journals, complemented by archival research and in-depth subject matter expertise, this work maps major shifts in research priorities, authorship, and institutional contexts from 1945 to 2019. In doing so, it outlines the ebbs and flows of cancer publications and research from the mid-20th-century surge of activity emerging as a result of imperial ambitions and scientific interests, to the decline in international visibility following decolonization, and the later resurgence of African-led research rooted in regional clinical priorities. This article emphasizes the dual legacy of Africa as both a significant site of global oncological discovery and a region where structural inequities and colonial hierarchies of knowledge and value have long constrained cancer care and research capacity. Understanding this history is essential for informing present initiatives. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print October 22, 2026:e1-e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2026.308751).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2026.308751
  22. Patterns (N Y). 2026 Oct 09. 7(10): 101640
      Insufficiently documented publications can make independent reproduction an unnecessarily laborious task. We define the cost of reproducibility as the resources required to reproduce the findings of a study and we propose five dimensions of cost, using objective characteristics such as code and data. We review 918 publications between 2022 and 2024 at top AI venues to evaluate the variation in reproducibility costs, with the hypothesis that publications at venues with stricter standards are less costly. Papers published at machine learning conferences are less costly to reproduce than publication from other venues, 12.91% less costly compared with journals, and 16.52% less costly compared with general AI conferences. Award-winning papers, however, are not less costly to reproduce than regular papers, and 6.72% of implementation repository links were broken. These findings suggest that reproducibility costs can be significantly reduced through compliance-based mechanisms-provided they receive community support. We recommend that venues require the inclusion of reproducibility checklists in their publications, permit appendices for comprehensive documentation, and adopt low reproducibility cost as a key criterion for awards.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; cost; documentation; machine learning; meta-science; quantification; replicability; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2026.101640
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Oct 27. 123(43): e2626763123
      Disruption describes the extent to which a scientific work overturns the prior knowledge on which it builds and leads to a new line of research. A scientist's tendency to produce disruptive work has been found recently to decline over the career. However, the disruption index captures only how strongly a paper overturns prior work and ignores whether that disruption is later accepted or overturned by subsequent research. The persistent disruption (PD) framework adds this second perspective, identifying work that disrupts prior research and is then consolidated rather than displaced by later work. We examine how PD evolves over the career and find the opposite pattern: The probability of producing a persistent disruptive paper increases with career age. Senior scientists disrupt prior work less often compared to young, but once they do, the disruption tends to persist rather than being quickly superseded. Our results suggest that this reversal feature is due to the experience and we corroborate it across several dimensions of recognition. We also show that, at a fixed level of disruptiveness, the more senior the scientist is, it attracts more citations, social-media attention, and research grants. Nobel laureates also show delayed persistent disruptions. They exhibit high disruptive ability early in their careers, yet their prize-winning work appears years later. This lag further indicates that experience is needed to turn disruptive ability into the field's most celebrated contributions.
    Keywords:  aging effect; persistent disruption; science of science; scientific career; scientific impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2626763123
  24. J Med Libr Assoc. 2026 Oct 01. 114(4): 483-490
       Background: This case report demonstrates how a health sciences librarian designed and delivered a data-driven research analytics service to support a multi-institutional pre-award proposal.
    Case Presentation: The librarian was invited to join a multi-institutional research team. After defining the project scope, the librarian developed and executed a structured search strategy in a key research database for collaborative research publications across the participating institutions. After two reviewers independently screened search results for relevance, the librarian applied validated measures and metrics and conducted quantitative data analysis and visualization with bibliographic metadata collected from the included research publications. The findings offered quantitative evidence that illustrates the dynamics and patterns in research productivity, collaboration networks, and topic distribution within the collaborative research effort. This librarian's work contributes to a timely delivery of actionable insights, directly informing the research team's proposal strategy and preparation.
    Conclusion: This case presents a replicable framework for embedding research analytics services within library practice to support research performance evaluation. Leveraging librarians' expertise in literature search, research databases, bibliometrics, and data-driven workflows, librarians demonstrate their growing prominence as essential partners in research proposal development and research analytics.
    Keywords:  Pre-award support; bibliometrics; research analytics; research collaboration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2412
  25. BMC Public Health. 2026 Jul 27. pii: 3032. [Epub ahead of print]26(1):
       BACKGROUND: The "up-or-out" system is designed to determine faculty retention based on research performance; however, its potential impact on the mental health of early-career faculty remains unclear.
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the "up-or-out" system on the mental health of early-career faculty and to explore the underlying mechanisms.
    METHODS: A three-year longitudinal study was conducted among faculty members from 39 universities who had received job offers but had not yet signed employment contracts. Generalized estimating equation models, mediation analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and attrition analysis were used to examine the effects of research performance indicators (frequency of project applications, funding level, and number of published papers) on the primary outcome (PHQ-9) and secondary outcomes (GAD-7 and PSS-10).
    RESULTS: A total of 2,632 early-career faculty were included in the analysis. The study found significant interaction effects of research performance on both primary and secondary outcomes (P < 0.05). For the primary outcome, faculty who published an average of ≥ 3 papers per year had a significantly higher depression score (MD [95% CI] = 5.67 [4.14 to 5.98]) than those who published an average of ≤ 2 papers per year (MD [95% CI] = 4.41 [3.06 to 4.86]). Similarly, faculty with ≥ 3 grant applications showed a significantly higher level of depression (MD [95% CI] = 6.06 [5.46, 6.69]) than those with < 3 applications (MD [95% CI] = 3.32 [2.95 to 4.02]). Compared with faculty who received projects lower level, those who obtained national-level funding exhibited a significant reduction in depression scores (MD [95% CI] = - 2.31 [-3.18 to - 1.44]), whereas provincial-level funding was associated with a non-significant change (P > 0.05). Regarding secondary outcomes, stress and anxiety scores increased as the periodic evaluation approached (P < 0.05). Obtaining project funding and publishing more papers exerted a buffering effect on stress (P < 0.05), whereas a higher frequency of grant applications increased the risk of anxiety (P < 0.05). Mediation analyses showed that the frequency of grant applications had a significant positive indirect effect on depression and anxiety (P < 0.05), while project funding level (for stress and anxiety) and number of published papers (for stress) exhibited significant negative indirect effects (P < 0.05). Gender differences showed a convergent trend over time (P > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the main findings, and attrition analysis indicated no selective bias, and Harman's single-factor test did not reveal serious common method bias.
    CONCLUSION: The up-or-out system is associated with the high-output-high-depression paradox among early-career faculty. Therefore, optimizing the evaluation system could focus on balancing research performance and mental health, for example, by extending the evaluation cycle, increasing funding coverage, and establishing psychological support mechanisms.
    Keywords:  Anxiety; Contract assessment system; Depression; Stress; Up-or-out
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-28756-5
  26. JMIR Med Inform. 2026 Oct 21. 14 e105709
       Background: Health AI investment is accelerating across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), yet the region's health AI research output has never been systematically quantified. National research capacity is a structural precondition for the safe local development and governance of clinical AI, but no scientometric baseline exists for the 6 GCC states.
    Objective: We characterized the volume, growth, collaboration structure, and thematic composition of GCC health AI research and examined whether national output aligns with an existing measure of informatics readiness.
    Methods: We conducted an ecological scientometric analysis of all health AI publications affiliated with the 6 GCC states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) for 2011 to 2024 (the last complete indexing year at extraction) using the open bibliographic database OpenAlex. A publication was eligible if it included both an AI family and a health or medicine family concept above a 0.30 relevance threshold. Bibliometric indicators (output, compound annual growth, per capita intensity, citation impact, international and intraregional collaboration, and institutional concentration) were computed; coauthorship and concept co-occurrence networks were constructed and clustered by modularity. National health AI intensity was correlated (Spearman) with the Health Informatics Readiness Index (HIRI) and Global Digital Health Monitor (GDHM) phase.
    Results: Of 112,480 GCC-affiliated AI publications, 3512 met the health AI definition. Regional output rose from 18 (2011) to 904 (2024) publications per year (compound annual growth=35.2%), with 86.4% (3034/3512) published from 2020 onward and a sharp inflection from 2019 to 2021. Saudi Arabia contributed 59.6% (2094/3512) of the output by itself and 81.5% (2862/3512) together with the United Arab Emirates; Qatar led on a per capita basis (approximately 136 publications per million population). International collaboration (2551/3512, 72.6% of the papers) predominated over intra-GCC collaboration (164/3327, 4.9%), with the latter being inversely related to national output. The principal external partners were India, the United States, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and Egypt. Output spanned 3186 institutions; concentration ranged from 89.4% (328/367) of a country's output among the top 3 institutions for Qatar to 34.4% (721/2094) for Saudi Arabia. Concept co-occurrence was classified into 4 themes-classic machine learning clinical prediction, medical imaging and oncology, COVID-19 response, and diabetic eye disease. Health AI intensity (ρ=+0.60) and, more strongly, absolute output (ρ=+0.89) correlated with the HIRI; absolute output was also correlated with GDHM phase (ρ=+0.83).
    Conclusions: GCC health AI research has grown rapidly but unevenly, is heavily dependent on international collaboration, is concentrated in medical imaging, and-outside Saudi Arabia-remains anchored in single national institutions. Informatics readiness was associated with both the intensity and the volume of national research output. The findings establish a reproducible baseline for monitoring regional health AI research capacity as GCC health systems move toward clinical AI deployment.
    Keywords:  AI; Gulf Cooperation Council; OpenAlex; artificial intelligence; bibliometrics; digital health; health informatics; research capacity; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/105709
  27. Conserv Biol. 2026 Oct 19. e70404
      There is a persistent underrepresentation of marginalized voices in academic literature, including that for ecology and conservation. Such exclusion hampers career progression, perpetuating disadvantages for historically marginalized groups in the field, with implications for the direction of conservation research. Diverse perspectives foster novel thinking, strengthen innovation, and ensure research reflects the full spectrum of challenges faced by communities. To assess this underrepresentation, we analyzed self-reported demographic data for authors of scientific articles to explore demographic trends and how they shifted between 2010 and 2020. The journals chosen were listed as conservation-related by three or more of the five major journal indices. We used the same dimensions of diversity to assess editor demographics in 2021. In total, 2152 authors and 241 editors completed the survey (response rate: 21.5% authors; 29.5% editors). We found that overall author diversity across multiple traits (Rao's Q) increased between 2010 and 2020. Most notably, the representation of women increased from 29.5% to 35.6% of authors. However, women from lower-middle- or low-income countries still represented <1% of authors, and most dimensions of diversity saw little change over a decade. In 2020-2021, 80% of authors and 76% of editors self-identified as White; over three-quarters of respondents across years lived in high-income countries; and nationals of three countries (the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia) represented 34% of authors and 49% of editors (5% of the global population). Our study findings highlight the importance of considering intersectionality, as respondents spanning multiple marginalized identities were disproportionately underrepresented. Overall, our work highlights how a lack of representation continues to characterize academic publishing in conservation and ecology but shows signs of positive change. There is evidence that gender-based initiatives are having a positive effect, yet more work is needed to enhance representation across other dimensions of diversity.
    Keywords:  Discapacidad; disability; diversidad en la ciencia; diversity in science; equidad e inclusión; equity and inclusion; gender; género; interseccionalidad; intersectionality; race; raza
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70404
  28. Nature. 2026 Oct;658(8137): 1089-1092
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Funding; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03315-5