bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2025–12–21
nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.
  2. Three decades of transformation: a bibliometric study of gender and geographic trends in international orthopaedic journal publications.
  3. Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?
  4. Cross-sectional study of citations from Brazilian Vascular Journal and Brazilian authors between the years 2016-2024.
  5. From first to last author: evaluation of women's career progression in mental health publishing in one institution.
  6. Mapping the conceptual structure of research on open innovation in university-industry collaborations: a bibliometric analysis.
  7. Longitudinal dataset of journal data sharing policies across 22 disciplines for 2014 2019 and 2023.
  8. Does solo publication still make sense? : Single-authored publications have been essential to scientific progress but are now facing extinction.
  9. Industry-Reported Financial Relationships Among American Ophthalmology Society Board Members.
  1. PLoS Biol. 2025 Dec;23(12): e3003532
    Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.
    Salsabil Arabi, Chaoqun Ni, B Ian Hutchins.
      During career advancement and funding allocation decisions in biomedicine, reviewers have traditionally depended on journal-level measures of scientific influence like the impact factor. Prestigious journals reject large quantities of papers, many of which may be meritorious. It is possible that this process could create a system whereby some influential articles are prospectively identified and recognized by journal brands, but most influential articles are overlooked. Here, we measure the degree to which journal prestige hierarchies capture or overlook influential science. We quantify the fraction of scientists' articles that would receive recognition because (a) they are published in journals above a chosen impact factor threshold, or (b) they are at least as well-cited as articles appearing in such journals. We find that the number of papers cited at least as well as those appearing in high-impact factor journals vastly exceeds the number of papers published in such venues. At the investigator level, this phenomenon extends across gender, racial, and career stage groupings of scientists. We also find that approximately half of researchers never publish in a venue with an impact factor above 15, which, under journal-level evaluation regimes, may exclude them from consideration for opportunities. Many of these researchers publish equally influential work; however, raising the possibility that the traditionally chosen journal-level measures that are routinely considered under decision-making norms, policy, or law, may recognize as little as 10%-20% of this influential work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003532
  2. Bone Joint Res. 2025 Dec 16. 14(12): 1157-1166
    Three decades of transformation: a bibliometric study of gender and geographic trends in international orthopaedic journal publications.
    Per Jolbäck, Antonia F Chen, Chloe E H Scott, Sebastian Mukka, Maziar Mohaddes, Anne Garland.
       Aims: Academic journals are essential for advancing knowledge, yet gender disparities in orthopaedic authorship persist. While most previous studies focus authorship trends on mainly North American journals, this study analyzes gender distribution among primary and senior authors, along with the geographical origins of articles, in three orthopaedic journals based in Europe and North America.
    Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted on articles published from 2000 to 2004, 2010 to 2014, and 2020 to 2024 in the following journals: Acta Orthopaedica (AO), The Bone & Joint Journal (BJJ), and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR). The gender of primary and senior authors, as well as the geographical and developmental status of their countries, were collected. The Namsor application, along with additional sources, was used to assign author gender. Country development status was determined by the Human Development Index.
    Results: The study analyzed 7,381 articles. Female authorship significantly increased over time in all journals analyzed. Female primary authorship rose from 238 (8.9%) in the first period to 495 (24.7%) in the third, and senior female authorship increased from 133 (5.1%) to 287 (14.3%). In AO, female primary authorship saw a 3.4-fold rise, while senior authorship increased 4.9-fold. For BJJ, female primary authorship rose 2.3-fold, while senior authorship increased 1.7-fold. In CORR, primary authorship grew 2.7-fold and senior authorship 3.6-fold. Geographically, Europe was the most prominent contributor to AO and BJJ, while North America led in CORR. Articles from developing countries showed small increases, with China and India being key contributors, especially in BJJ and CORR.
    Conclusion: The study highlights a notable rise in female authorship in three orthopaedic journals, based in Europe and North America. The increase in female authors is more closely associated with specific countries rather than entire continents. Despite low representation, articles from developing countries increased in CORR and BJJ. While progress in gender diversity is promising, regional disparities continue to exist.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.1412.BJR-2025-0010.R1
  3. Eur Radiol. 2025 Dec 20.
    Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?
    Aydin Demircioğlu.
      Radiomics is increasingly explored as a tool for improving diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning. However, concerns exist about the reproducibility and methodological rigor of its studies. The integration of high-dimensional radiomic features and machine learning makes the field prone to unintentional errors that may warrant retraction. Despite a rising number of retractions in science overall, no dedicated study has examined retractions specifically within radiomics. Therefore, this study aimed to review retracted radiomics publications and identify the characteristics and reasons for their retraction. We systematically searched six databases (Crossref, Retraction Watch Database, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and identified 93 retracted radiomics publications, of which 20 were included. These articles were analyzed with respect to publisher, country of origin, dates, citation counts, and reasons for retraction. Retraction rates were then estimated and compared with those in general radiology. Our findings indicate that a disproportionate number of retractions are linked to specific publishers and countries (particularly China and India), with overall low citation counts (median 4.0 citations). Retractions peaked sharply in 2023, followed by a strong decline. Many retraction notes lack a clear explanation for the retraction. Estimated retraction rates in radiomics were lower than in general radiology (6.7 vs 7.4 per 10,000 publications). Notably, no major radiological or oncological journal appears to have retracted a radiomics publication. Given that radiomics demands higher, interdisciplinary expertise, this suggests a gap, implying that flawed research may yet have to be retracted. KEY POINTS: Question Considering the technical complexity of radiomics studies and their susceptibility to unintentional errors, how do their retraction rates compare to those in general radiology? Findings Retractions in radiomics were disproportionately linked to specific publishers and countries; however, no retractions appeared in major journals. Estimated retraction rates were lower than those for general radiology publications. Clinical relevance A potential gap in the number of retracted radiomics studies was identified, implying that flawed research in the field may not yet have been addressed.
    Keywords:  Machine Learning; Methodology; Radiology; Radiomics; Research Integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-12231-7
  4. J Vasc Bras. 2025 ;24 e20250016
    Cross-sectional study of citations from Brazilian Vascular Journal and Brazilian authors between the years 2016-2024.
    Lucas Peclat, Lucas Costa Barbosa, Rafael Peclat, Julio Cesar Peclat de Oliveira, Marina Araujo Zulchner, Bianca Gutfilen, Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli, Marcos Arêas Marques.
       Background: Although the overall volume of Brazilian scientific research has increased over the past decades, for years there has been a noticeable lack of prestige attributed to national publications in favor of foreign journals. This dynamic has limited their influence and the development of Brazilian lines of research.
    Objectives: To analyze the references used by the Brazilian Vascular Journal (BVJ), in relation to its own journal of origin, in order to identify the representativeness and relevance of national journals.
    Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out, examining 13,633 bibliographic references cited in 582 articles from the BVJ, published between 2016 and 2024 and indexed in PubMed. The references were extracted and organized in a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet, in which the origin of each citation was verified, with an emphasis on identifying which were Brazilian and/or from the BVJ, in addition to searching for self-citations by the first author.
    Results: A total of 1,300 (9.5%) citations of articles from Brazilian journals were identified in the BVJ. The BVJ was the most frequently cited national journal, with 613 references (4.5%). It was observed that 189 (32%) of the articles analyzed did not include any national reference. The percentage of self-citations was 8%, showing a downward trend over time.
    Conclusions: The low number of citations is consistent with what has been previously described in the national literature, which has warned of the same issue for 30 years. The decreasing percentage of self-citations may suggest greater diversity of sources used over the years. These findings highlight a culture of disregard for national journals, which hinders original research and compromises the development of research lines focused on the Brazilian population.
    Keywords:  citation database; journal index; open access publishing; periodical publications; publications; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.202500162
  5. BJPsych Open. 2025 Dec 15. 12(1): e17
    From first to last author: evaluation of women's career progression in mental health publishing in one institution.
    Daniel Stahl, Imogen Kilcoyne, Phil Staite, Til Wykes.
       BACKGROUND: There is ample evidence that women do not progress in mental health publishing as quickly as men. The movement from first to last (senior) author is one indicator of progression.
    AIMS: To understand whether there are changes in women's authorship position following our academic institution's introduction of support mechanisms to reduce the gender gap in career development.
    METHOD: Data from publicly held databases in three cohorts (2016, 2018 and 2020) were assessed for gender and authorship position at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience. Regression analyses included authorship gender and change over time in authorship roles, by school and topic.
    RESULTS: We found substantial, statistically significant differences in gender between author roles (χ2(2) = 29.18, P < 0.0001), with women being mainly first authors (marginal mean 62.2:40.1%, respectively, odds ratio 2.463, 95% CI 1.807 to 3.357). The three schools differed (χ2(2) = 14.06, P < 0.001) and, although men were predominant as last authors in all topics in both 2016 and 2020, women did show a modest increase. The trend for an interaction between gender and first-author publications on the likelihood of last-author publications in 2018 (incidence rate ratio 1.839, 95% CI 0.914 to 3.698) had disappeared by 2020.
    CONCLUSIONS: Although women were represented as first and corresponding authors, there was still a gender gap for last-author positions. Over time, women have increased their representation in many of the topic areas. The disappearance of any gender-moderating effect suggests that institutional policies may have had an effect, in addition to sector-wide changes.
    Keywords:  Gender; academia; career progression; mental health; publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10931
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1693969
    Mapping the conceptual structure of research on open innovation in university-industry collaborations: a bibliometric analysis.
    Vladimir Alfonso Ballesteros-Ballesteros, Rodrigo Arturo Zárate-Torres.
       Introduction: Open innovation has become a central mechanism for enhancing university-industry collaboration (UIC), fostering the co-development of innovative and socially responsive solutions. As organizations increasingly embrace openness and knowledge-sharing practices, understanding the evolution of open innovation in university-industry collaboration (OIUIC) is critical amid accelerating digitalization and mounting sustainability imperatives.
    Methods: This review maps the conceptual structure of OIUIC research from 2003 to 2024 by applying co-word analysis and social network mapping to a dataset of 2,601 articles indexed in Scopus. We extracted and standardized 5,269 unique keywords, constructed co-word networks to identify thematic clusters, and deployed network metrics to reveal patterns of scholarly collaboration and influence.
    Results: The analysis uncovered five dominant keyword clusters: "technology transfer," "university-industry knowledge transfer (UIKT)," "knowledge transfer," "academic entrepreneurship," and "university," which collectively define the field's conceptual architecture. Geographically, the United Kingdom leads in publication output, while Research Policy and The Journal of Technology Transfer emerge, respectively, as the most cited and the most prolific journals. Network metrics further highlight key author and institution hubs that bridge thematic communities.
    Discussion: By synthesizing major themes and research clusters, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the OIUIC intellectual landscape. Our findings offer critical insights for researchers and policymakers, suggesting priority areas for future inquiry, such as digital transformation, sustainability integration and cross-regional partnership models, and informing evidence-based policy development to strengthen inclusive and adaptive innovation ecosystems.
    Keywords:  academic engagement; co-word analysis; higher education; open innovation; university–industry collaboration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1693969
  7. Sci Data. 2025 Dec 13.
    Longitudinal dataset of journal data sharing policies across 22 disciplines for 2014 2019 and 2023.
    Ui Ikeuchi.
      This dataset documents journal data sharing policies across 22 disciplines for 2014 2019 and 2023. A total of 220 high-impact journals were surveyed, representing the top ten journals (by Impact Factor) from each discipline listed in the Essential Science Indicators. For each journal, policies concerning two types of data sharing were reviewed: repository-based data sharing and supplementary materials. Policy requirements were classified into four categories based on their strength: require, recommend, accept, or no policy. Data were collected at three time points through systematic reviews of journal websites and submission guidelines. The dataset includes journal metadata-such as publishers, ISSN, and Impact Factor-along with detailed policy descriptions and classifications. This longitudinal dataset provides evidence of changes in data sharing requirements over time and enables comparative studies of journal policies. These data may be useful for research on open science practices, the development of science policy, and the evolution of scholarly publishing standards.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06434-2
  8. EMBO Rep. 2025 Dec 16.
    Does solo publication still make sense? : Single-authored publications have been essential to scientific progress but are now facing extinction.
    Valentí Rull.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-025-00677-1
  9. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2025 Dec 14.
    Industry-Reported Financial Relationships Among American Ophthalmology Society Board Members.
    Mostafa Bondok, Leonardo Lando, Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, Michael Knafo, Albert Y Wu.
       BACKGROUND: To assess financial disclosures of American ophthalmology society board members by comparing self-reported disclosures with industry-reported payments and examining characteristics linked to larger financial relationships.
    METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, we assessed all governance board members from American ophthalmology societies in December 2022. Board composition was identified from society websites, payment data from the Open Payments database, and conflict of interest (COI) policies from IRS Form 990 filings. Outcomes included concordance between self- and industry-reported disclosures, payment values, gender and subspecialty differences and academic characteristics.
    RESULTS: Among 871 board members from 66 societies, 566 (65.0%) had industry-reported relationships, yet only 22 (2.5%) disclosed COIs on society websites. In 2022, 13 187 payments totaling $57.8 million were reported, with 79.5% related to research. Most societies reported internal COI policies (77.8%) and annual disclosure requirements (75.6%) via IRS filings. Men received significantly higher median payments than women ($217.5 vs. $43.3; p < 0.001). Retina specialists accounted for the largest share of payment value (55.3%), while paediatric ophthalmologists received the least (0.4%). Board members with research payments had higher academic productivity (median h-index: 19 vs. 8; p < 0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of board members' financial relationships on ophthalmology society websites was uncommon, likely reflecting differences in society-level disclosure practices rather than individual nondisclosure. These findings underscore an opportunity for societies to enhance transparency by adopting more consistent, transparent COI reporting practices in ophthalmology governance.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.70039
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒01‒01 at 18:22.