101007/s11192-023-04675-9 provides access to supplemental materials accompanying the online version.

Research undertaken in the past regarding positive and negative language within academic discourse has uncovered a trend toward using more positive language in the context of academic writings. Nonetheless, the degree to which features and actions of linguistic positivity differ across various academic specializations is uncertain. In addition, the connection between positive rhetoric in research and its overall impact deserves more comprehensive investigation. Within a cross-disciplinary framework, the present study scrutinized the presence of linguistic positivity in academic writing to tackle these concerns. Utilizing a 111-million-word corpus of research article abstracts obtained from Web of Science, this study explored the historical progression of positive and negative language use across eight academic disciplines. This examination included an investigation of the correlation between linguistic positivity and citation counts. Across the academic disciplines examined, the results highlighted a prevalent increase in linguistic positivity. Linguistic positivity within hard disciplines exhibited a greater and more rapidly increasing trend than within soft disciplines. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/hrs-4642.html Ultimately, a substantial positive correlation was discovered between citation counts and the degree of positive linguistic tone. Linguistic positivity's temporal fluctuations and disciplinary disparities were studied, with implications for the scientific community considered and discussed.

Journalistic articles appearing in high-impact scientific publications exert considerable influence, especially within trending research areas. A meta-research study examined the publication records, impact, and conflict-of-interest statements of non-research authors who published over 200 Scopus-indexed articles in top-tier journals including Nature, Science, PNAS, Cell, BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine. Prolific authors numbered 154, 148 of whom had published a total of 67825 papers in their main journal in a non-research context. These authors predominantly utilize Nature, Science, and BMJ as their publication platforms. Journalistic publications, as assessed by Scopus, were categorized into full articles (35%) and short surveys (11%). More than 100 citations were awarded to 264 papers. Of the top 41 most cited research papers between 2020 and 2022, 40 were directly concerned with the pivotal aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a group of 25 highly prolific authors, each with more than 700 articles published in a specific journal, a majority demonstrated a noteworthy impact by achieving citation counts exceeding the median at 2273. Significantly, most of these authors concentrated their publishing output almost entirely within a single journal, their publications outside of that journal being scant. Their significant writings traversed numerous critical research themes across the years. Within the twenty-five subjects analyzed, only three had acquired a PhD in any field, and seven had attained a master's degree in the field of journalism. Prolific science writers' potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the BMJ website, but a very limited two of the twenty-five most prolific authors specified their potential conflicts in detail. The weighty influence of non-researchers on scientific discourse requires further discussion, coupled with a heightened focus on declarations of potential conflicts of interest.

Due to the internet's contribution to the rapid growth of research volume, the retraction of published scientific papers in journals is essential for upholding the principles of scientific integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a pronounced rise in both public and professional interest in scientific literature, as people endeavor to learn more about the virus since its inception. To guarantee the articles met the inclusion criteria, the Retraction Watch Database COVID-19 blog was reviewed in June and November of 2022. Research articles were sourced from Google Scholar and Scopus to evaluate citation counts and SJR/CiteScore metrics. The average SJR and CiteScore of journals that published articles similar to one in question were measured at 1531 and 73, respectively. The retracted articles garnered an average of 448 citations, a figure substantially higher than the average CiteScore (p=0.001). During the months of June through November, 728 new citations were accrued by articles on COVID-19 that had been retracted; the inclusion of 'withdrawn' or 'retracted' in the title did not impact citation counts. The COPE guidelines for retraction statements were inadequately implemented in 32% of the articles published. Publications on COVID-19 that were subsequently retracted, we theorize, may have had a tendency to present bold claims that drew an exceptionally high degree of attention within the scientific sphere. Correspondingly, we identified many journals that did not offer clear justifications for the removal of articles. The use of retractions to advance scientific discourse is conceivable, yet at present we are only privy to the observable outcomes, missing the fundamental causal explanations, or the 'why'.

Open science (OS) is supported by a critical practice of data sharing, and open data (OD) policies are becoming more commonplace among institutions and journals. Enhancing academic prominence and spurring scientific development are the goals of OD, but the methods by which this is achieved remain inadequately expounded. The citation patterns of articles from Chinese economics journals are analyzed within this study to understand the subtle influence of OD policies.
The pioneering (CIE) journal, the sole Chinese social science publication, has implemented a mandatory open data policy, thereby requiring that every published article divulge the original data and processing codes. Using article-level data and the difference-in-differences (DID) method, we evaluate the citation impact of articles published in CIE relative to 36 peer journals. Following the implementation of the OD policy, a noteworthy surge in citation counts was observed, with each article receiving, on average, 0.25, 1.19, 0.86, and 0.44 more citations in the initial four years post-publication. In addition, the research indicated a progressive erosion of citation benefits stemming from the OD policy, becoming detrimental five years post-publication. Finally, the evolving citation pattern demonstrates an OD policy's dual effect, rapidly boosting citation performance while simultaneously accelerating the aging of articles.
101007/s11192-023-04684-8 hosts the supplementary content accompanying the online document.
Included with the online version, supplementary materials are available at 101007/s11192-023-04684-8.

Improvements in gender equality within Australian science, while commendable, have not fully addressed the lingering problem. A study aimed at a better comprehension of gender inequality in Australian science encompassed a meticulous analysis of all gendered Australian first-authored publications, indexed in the Dimensions database, between the years 2010 and 2020. To categorize articles, the Field of Research (FoR) was implemented, and the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) facilitated the evaluation of citations in comparative analysis. A consistent increase in the percentage of female first authors was noted across various fields of research throughout the years, though this pattern was absent in the area of information and computing sciences. The study period witnessed a positive trend in the proportion of single-authored articles written by females. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/hrs-4642.html A Field Citation Ratio analysis uncovered a citation edge for female researchers in diverse areas including mathematical sciences, chemical sciences, technology, built environment and design, studies of human society, law and legal studies, and studies in creative arts and writing, when contrasted with their male counterparts. Female first authors enjoyed a greater average FCR than male first authors, a tendency visible even in fields like mathematical sciences, where a higher output of articles was attributed to male authors.

Text-based research proposals are a typical request from funding institutions to evaluate potential recipients. These documents offer valuable data for institutions to understand the research supply within their domain of expertise. An end-to-end methodology for semi-supervised document clustering is described here, enabling a partial automation of research proposal classification according to thematic areas of interest. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/hrs-4642.html The three-stage methodology involves (1) manually annotating a sample document, (2) applying semi-supervised clustering to the documents, and (3) evaluating the resulting clusters based on quantitative metrics and expert assessments of coherence, relevance, and distinctiveness. To encourage reproducibility, the methodology is extensively detailed and demonstrated using real-world data. This demonstration aimed to categorize, for the US Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC), proposals pertaining to technological advancements in military medicine. A comparative evaluation of methodological attributes was undertaken, encompassing unsupervised and semi-supervised clustering techniques, diverse document vectorization approaches, and various cluster outcome selection strategies. The observed outcomes suggest a higher quality of representation for the task at hand when using pretrained Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) embeddings instead of older text embedding methods. Semi-supervised clustering outperformed standard unsupervised clustering in expert ratings of coherence by roughly 25%, with only minor disparities in the distinctiveness of clusters. The cluster result selection technique that simultaneously factored in internal and external validity parameters demonstrably produced the ideal results. With further enhancements, this methodological framework exhibits potential as a helpful analytical resource for institutions in extracting hidden insights from untapped archives and similar administrative documentation sources.