本文对国际科学计量学杂志《Ｓｃｉｅｎｔｏｍｅｔｒｉｃｓ》１９７９－１９９１年的研究论文内容、栏目、作者及国别和编委及国别作了计量分析，揭示出科学计量学研究的重点、活动的中心及发展趋势，说明了学科带头人在发展科学计量学这门新兴学科中的作用。

国际刊物《Scientometrics》文献计量研究

Faculty at prestigious institutions produce more scientific papers, receive more citations and scholarly awards, and are typically trained at more-prestigious institutions than faculty with less prestigious appointments. This imbalance is often attributed to a meritocratic system that sorts individuals into more-prestigious positions according to their reputation, past achievements, and potential for future scholarly impact. Here, we investigate the determinants of scholarly productivity and measure their dependence on past training and current work environments. To distinguish the effects of these environments, we apply a matched-pairs experimental design to career and productivity trajectories of 2,453 early-career faculty at all 205 PhD-granting computer science departments in the United States and Canada, who together account for over 200,000 publications and 7.4 million citations. Our results show that the prestige of faculty’s current work environment, not their training environment, drives their future scientific productivity, while current and past locations drive prominence. Furthermore, the characteristics of a work environment are more predictive of faculty productivity and impact than mechanisms representing preferential selection or retention of more-productive scholars by more-prestigious departments. These results identify an environmental mechanism for cumulative advantage, in which an individual’s past successes are “locked in” via placement into a more prestigious environment, which directly facilitates future success. The scientific productivity of early-career faculty is thus driven by where they work, rather than where they trained for their doctorate, indicating a limited role for doctoral prestige in predicting scientific contributions.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/22/10729.full.pdf

Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment

The study of journal authorship and editorial board membership from a gender perspective is addressed in this paper following international recommendations about the need to obtain science and technology indicators by gender. Authorship informs us about active scientists who contribute to the production and dissemination of new knowledge through journal articles, while editorial board membership tells us about leading scientists who have obtained scientific recognition within the scientific community. This study analyses by gender the composition of the editorial boards of 131 high-quality Spanish journals in all fields of science, the presence of men and women as authors in a selection of 36 journals, and the evolution of these aspects from 1998 to 2009. Female presence is lower than male presence in authorship, editorial board membership and editorship. The presence of female authors is slightly lower than the presence of women in the Spanish Higher Education sector and doubles female presence in editorial boards, which mirrors female presence in the highest academic rank. The gender gap tends to diminish over the years in most areas, especially in authorship and very slightly in editorial board membership. Large editorial boards and having a female editor-in-chief are positively correlated with women presence in editorial boards. The situation of women in Spanish science is further assessed in an international context analysing a selection of international reference journals. The usefulness of journal-based indicators to monitor the situation of men and women in science and to assess the success of policies oriented to enhance gender equality in science is finally discussed.

/pdf/assessing-gender-balance-among-journal-authors-and-editorial-47oad7qnve.pdf

Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members

The robustness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author’s gender and nationality To address this, we examine the peer review outcomes of 23,873 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017 Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and last authors We found a homophilic interaction between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors in determining the outcome of peer review; that is, gatekeepers favor manuscripts from authors of the same gender and from the same country, The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes Similarly, manuscripts were more likely to be accepted when reviewed by at least one gatekeeper with the same national affiliation as the corresponding author Our results indicated that homogeneity between author and gatekeeper gender and nationality is associated with the outcomes of scientific peer review We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications Code and anonymized data, have been made available at https://githubcom/murrayds/elife-analysis Author summary Peer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated and developed, is ideally a fair and equitable process, in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between between male and female authors, and between authors in different countries We investigated such a disparity at the biosciences journal eLife, by analyzing the author and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) demographics and review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017 We found evidence of disparity in outcomes that disfavored women and those outside of North America and Europe, and that these groups were underrepresented among, authors and gatekeepers The gender disparity was greatest when reviewers were all male; mixed-gender reviewer teams lead to more equitable outcomes Similarly, manuscripts were more likely to be accepted when reviewed by at least one gatekeeper from the same country as the corresponding author Our results indicated that gatekeeper characteristics are associated with the outcomes of scientific peer review We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications

/pdf/gender-and-international-diversity-improves-equity-in-peer-2wshuhb00l.pdf

Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review

Despite women earning similar numbers of graduate degrees as men in STEM disciplines, they are underrepresented in upper level positions in both academia and industry. Editorial board memberships are an important example of such positions; membership is both a professional honor in recognition of achievement and an opportunity for professional advancement. We surveyed 10 highly regarded journals in environmental biology, natural resource management, and plant sciences to quantify the number of women on their editorial boards and in positions of editorial leadership (i.e., Associate Editors and Editors-in-Chief) from 1985 to 2013. We found that during this time period only 16% of subject editors were women, with more pronounced disparities in positions of editorial leadership. Although the trend was towards improvement over time, there was surprising variation between journals, including those with similar disciplinary foci. While demographic changes in academia may reduce these disparities over time, we argue journals should proactively strive for gender parity on their editorial boards. This will both increase the number of women afforded the opportunities and benefits that accompany board membership and increase the number of role models and potential mentors for early-career scientists and students.

Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management.

/pdf/indicadores-de-genero-en-las-publicaciones-cientificas-gate-3gpbwnjtkz.pdf

Laura Hillán

Papers

Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members

Indicadores de género en las publicaciones científicas: “gate-keepers” y autores