Biology subjects

Costas, R.

Publications and source records attributed to Costas, R..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2020

Task specialization and its effects on research careers

Scientific careers are conceived as one unique pathway which scientists must follow to succeed. We report the diversity of profiles scientists exhibit based on their contributorship and look into biases in their career trajectory. We use Bayesian networks to train a prediction model based on a dataset of 70,694 publications from PLoS journals representing 347,136 distinct authors and their associated contribution statements. This model is used to predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and apply a robust archetypal analysis to profile scientists by career stage. We divide scientific careers into four stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. Three scientific archetypes are found throughout the four career stages: leader, specialized, and supporting. All three archetypes are encountered for the early- and mid-career stages, whereas for junior and late-career stages only two archetypes are found. Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tend to have longer careers than researchers who belong to the supporting archetype. There is consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belong to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belong to the specialized archetype, especially for early and mid-career researchers.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

A scientometric overview of CORD-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds, researchers from all disciplines are coming together and contributing their expertise. CORD-19, a dataset of COVID-19 and coronavirus publications, has been made available along-side calls to help mine the information it contains and to create tools to search it more effectively. We analyse the delineation of the publications included in CORD-19 from a scientometric perspective. Based on a comparison to the Web of Science database, we find that CORD-19 provides an almost complete coverage of research on COVID-19 and coronaviruses. CORD-19 contains not only research that deals directly with COVID-19 and coronaviruses, but also research on viruses in general. Publications from CORD-19 focus mostly on a few well-defined research areas, in particular: coronaviruses (primarily SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2); public health and viral epidemics; molecular biology of viruses; influenza and other families of viruses; immunology and antivirals; clinical medicine. CORD-19 publications that appeared in 2020, especially editorials and letters, are disproportionately popular on social media. While we fully endorse the CORD-19 initiative, it is important to be aware that CORD-19 extends beyond research on COVID-19 and coronaviruses.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2017

Why Do Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Data? A Matched-Control Analysis Of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data.\n\nHere we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. Multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above were tested with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications.\n\nCategory 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, in accordance with the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Category 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. Significant correlations between the risk of image duplication and individual publication rates or gender, however, were only observed in secondary and exploratory analyses.\n\nCountry-level parameters generally exhibited effects of larger magnitude than individual-level parameters, because a subset of countries was significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. Promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.

scientific communication and education↗