Biology subjects

Baas, J.

Publications and source records attributed to Baas, J..

9 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2026

Mapping scientific cosmopolitanism: scientists with publication records substantially split across multiple countries

We used Scopus data on 243949 top-cited scientists to map scientific cosmopolitanism defined as having at least two different countries that contribute alone at least 10 percent of an author published record as indexed in Scopus. 20.4 percent of the top-cited authors were cosmopolitan based on this definition. Based on current author affiliation, rates varied widely from 9% to 76% across countries with at least 250 top-cited authors. Countries with few top-cited authors had almost always high rates of cosmopolitanism. The proportion of top-cited authors who are cosmopolitan has steadily increased over time in younger generations among those who started publishing after 1965 reaching 43% recently. Large differences were also seen across scientific subfields from 1% in General Psychology and Cognitive Sciences to 46% in Econometrics. Across the 30 country pairs that were most over-represented, countries shared borders, languages, most common religion pairs, or any of these features in 15, 19, 26, and 29 cases, respectively. The map of cosmopolitan authors reveals a large and increasing proportion of the most influential scientists who share two or more scientific homes that each has made a substantial contribution to their career. Cosmopolitanism among scientists requires better study to help facilitate its potential positive contributions not only to individual scientists but to science and society more broadly.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2025

Science-wide mapping and ranking of institutions based on affiliated authors

Standardized information on the size of institutions and on their concentration of high-impact scientists is missing. Here, we generate institution-level data on 6,979 institutions with >=50 authors who have had >=15 Scopus-indexed items. We present data on the number and proportion of top-cited authors (according to a composite citation indicator) for each institution. The primary analysis considers 1,214,702 authors (145,704 top-cited in career-long impact) who started publishing in 1980 or later, have published >=40 Scopus-indexed items and >=5 single-, first- or last-authored items. There is modest overlap among top institutions based on volume and based on number of top-cited authors. However, there is minimal overlap when institutions with the highest proportions of top-cited authors are considered; these include mostly research institutes and tech organizations and a minority of universities. Institutions with few eligible authors have large uncertainty. We propose a percentile ranking of the 2,380 largest institutions that adjusts the number of top-cited authors for the proportion of those who have high (>95th percentile) self-citation rates and high rates of publications in Scopus-discontinued titles and further penalizes for authorships of retracted papers not due to publisher/journal errors. Institutions with the highest self-citation, discontinuation, and retraction penalties cluster in specific countries. Among countries with >=15 institutions among the 2,380, Saudi Arabia, China, Malaysia, Iran, India and Indonesia have the lowest median percentile rankings of their institutions (3.9th-21st percentile) due to high penalties. The publicly available datasets that we provide allow institution-level research assessments balancing high impact against retractions and gaming practices.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2025

Gender imbalances of retraction prevalence among highly cited authors and among all authors

BackgroundScientific retractions remain rare but have become increasingly common. We have previously incorporated retraction data into Scopus-based databases of top-cited (top 2%) scientists to facilitate linkage of retractions with impact metrics at the individual scientist level. Here, we set out to explore whether gender disparities in the likelihood of having retractions exist, both among highly-cited authors and among all authors with [≥]5 publications. MethodsWe conducted a descriptive cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of a Scopus-based authors database. We used NamSor to assign gender, retaining only results with a confidence >85%. We examined the demographics of scientists with and without retractions among highly cited authors (career-long impact: n = 217,097) and among all other authors (n = 10,361,367). We stratified by publication age, field, country income level, and publication volume, and calculated gender-specific retraction rates and the prevalence ratio (R) of women versus men to have at least one retraction. Multivariable logistic regression were fitted to estimate adjusted associations, reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsGender could be classified for 8,267,888 scientists. Among highly cited authors, 3.3% of men and 2.9% of women had at least one retraction; among all authors, the rate was 0.7% for both genders. Differences varied by field: womens rates were at least one-third lower than mens (R < 0.7) in Biology, Biomedical Research, and Psychology (RD D1.3) in Economics, Engineering, and Information and Communication Technologies. Among highly cited authors, younger cohorts showed increasingly higher rates among men (4.2% men vs. 3.0% women in those starting to publish in 2002-2011; 8.7% men vs. 4.9% women in those starting post-2011). Country-level differences among highly cited authors were pronounced in some countries, as in Pakistan (28.7% men vs. 14.3% women). In multivariable analyses, differences were minimal, if any, for women versus men in having [≥]1 retraction (among all authors OR:D0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.97) among highly cited authors OR:D0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.03), while there were very strong associations of retractions with career age, country income, publication volume, and specific disciplines. ConclusionOur analysis shows no major gender differences in retraction rates overall, but field-specific differences may exist. Field, career age, country, and publication volume are stronger correlates of retraction. Structural and contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns and warrant further investigation.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2025

Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press

BackgroundDemocracy and freedom of press may affect how science is prioritized, produced, communicated and disseminated. We aimed to map the production of scientific publications worldwide in terms of democracy and freedom of press ratings of countries. MethodsThis is a bibliometric study cross-linking global bibliometric data with democracy ratings and freedom of the press indices for countries around the world. Democracy ratings used the Democracy Index in 2024 and in 2006 (when first released by the Economist Intelligence Unit) and Freedom of Press ratings used the 2024 index by Reports Without Borders. The Scopus database was used for publications from each country. Fractional counts were assigned for publications co-authored by authors from different countries. Full articles, reviews, conference papers, books and book chapters were included. ResultsIn 2024, countries characterized as full democracies produced only 22% of the Scopus-indexed publications, versus 66% in 2006. There was no correlation between the ratio of publications indexed in 2024 versus 2006 and the absolute or relative change in Democracy Index between 2006 and 2024 (r=0.02 and r=0.00, respectively). 78% of publications in 2024 came from countries with problematic (including USA) or worse (including China) rating for freedom of press. Proportions of publications originated from countries with problematic or worse situations were 81%, 91%, 61%, 62%, and 63% for political, economic, legislative, sociocultural, and safety/security dimensions, respectively. Results were similar when limited to articles published in 2024 in journals with continuous annual presence in Scopus during 2006-2024. 87.1% of the highly cited papers published in 2024 (with 150 or more Scopus citations by November 23, 2025) have at least one author from a country that is not full democracy and 98.8% of these highly cited papers have at least one author from a country that does not have good freedom of press. ConclusionsMost published science originates from countries struggling or suffering in democracy and/or freedom of press. The deeper causes and implications of this emerging landscape require further study.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data

Citation metrics are widely used in research appraisal, but they provide incomplete views of scientists impact and research track record. Other indicators of research practices should be linked to citation data. We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least one retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Evolving patterns of extremely productive publishing behavior across science

Extreme publishing behavior may reflect a combination of some authors with genuinely high publication output and of other people who have their names listed too frequently in publications because of consortium agreements, gift authorship or other spurious practices. We aimed to evaluate the evolution of extreme publishing behavior across countries and scientific fields during 2000-2022. Extreme publishing behavior was defined as having >60 full articles (original articles, reviews, conference papers) in a single calendar year and indexed in Scopus. We identified 3,191 authors with extreme publishing behavior across science excluding Physics and 12,624 such authors in Physics. While Physics had much higher numbers of extreme publishing authors in the past, in 2022 extreme publishing authors was almost as numerous in non-Physics and Physics disciplines (1,226 vs. 1,480). Excluding Physics, China had the largest number of extreme publishing authors, followed by the USA. The largest fold-wise increases between 2016 and 2022 (5-19-fold) occurred in Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Spain, India, Italy, Russia, Pakistan, and South Korea. Excluding Physics, most extreme publishing authors were in Clinical Medicine, but from 2016 to 2022 the largest relative increases (>6-fold) were seen in Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, Biology, and Mathematics and Statistics. Extreme publishing authors accounted for 4,360 of the 10,000 most-cited authors (based on raw citation count) across science. While most Physics authors with extreme publishing behavior had modest citation impact in a composite citation indicator that adjusts for co-authorship and author positions, 67% of authors with extreme publishing behavior in non-Physics fields remained within the top-2% according to that indicator among all authors with >=5 full articles. Extreme publishing behavior has become worryingly common across scientific fields with rapidly increasing rates in some countries and settings and may herald a rapid depreciation of authorship standards.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Differential correction of gender imbalance for top-cited scientists across scientific subfields over time

We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992-2001, 2002-2011, post-2011). Using NamSor we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men, and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had >=50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had >=30% women, and 3 subfields had =<10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the USA) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2021

Comprehensive mapping of local and diaspora scientists: a database and analysis of 63951 Greek scientists

Research policy and planning for a given country may benefit from reliable data on both its scientific workforce as well as the diaspora of scientists for countries with substantial brain drain. Here we use a systematic approach using Scopus to generate a comprehensive country-level database of all scientists in Greece. Moreover, we expand that database to include also Greek diaspora scientists. The database that we have compiled includes 63951 scientists who have published at least 5 papers indexed in Scopus. Of those, 35116 have an affiliation in Greece. We validate the sensitivity and specificity of the database against different control sets of scientists. We also analyze the scientific disciplines of these scientists according to the Science Metrix classification (174 subfield disciplines) and provide detailed data on each of the 63951 scientists using multiple citation indicators and a composite thereof. These analyses demonstrate differential concentrations in specific subfields for the local versus the diaspora cohorts, as well as an advantage of the diaspora cohort in terms of citation indicators especially among top-impact researchers. The approach that we have taken can be applied to map also the scientific workforce of other countries and nations for evaluation, planning and policy purposes.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

The rapid, massive infection of the scientific literature and authors by COVID-19

We examined the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields was engaged in publishing COVID-19-related papers. According to Scopus (data cut, August 1, 2021), 210,183 COVID-19-related publications included 720,801 unique authors, of which 360,005 authors had published at least 5 full papers in their career and 23,520 authors were at the top 2% of their scientific subfield based on a career-long composite citation indicator. The growth of COVID-19 authors was far more rapid and massive compared with cohorts of authors historically publishing on H1N1, Zika, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. All 174 scientific subfields had some specialists who had published on COVID-19. In 109 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in ten active, influential (top-2% composite citation indicator) authors in the subfield had authored something on COVID-19. 52 hyper-prolific authors had already at least 60 (and up to 227) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for their COVID-19 publications, most common countries were USA (n=67), China (n=52), UK (n=32), and Italy (n=18). The rapid and massive involvement of the scientific workforce in COVID-19-related work is unprecedented and creates opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.

scientific communication and education↗