Characterizing Fishing Effort and Spatial Extent of Coastal Fisheries

Biodiverse coastal zones are often areas of intense fishing pressure due to the high relative density of fishing capacity in these nearshore regions. Although overcapacity is one of the central challenges to fisheries sustainability in coastal zones, accurate estimates of fishing pressure in coastal zones are limited, hampering the assessment of the direct and collateral impacts (e.g., habitat degradation, bycatch) of fishing. We compiled a comprehensive database of fishing effort metrics and the corresponding spatial limits of fisheries and used a spatial analysis program (FEET) to map fishing effort density (measured as boat-meters per km2) in the coastal zones of six ocean regions. We also considered the utility of a number of socioeconomic variables as indicators of fishing pressure at the national level; fishing density increased as a function of population size and decreased as a function of coastline length. Our mapping exercise points to intra and interregional ‘hotspots’ of coastal fishing pressure. The significant and intuitive relationships we found between fishing density and population size and coastline length may help with coarse regional characterizations of fishing pressure. However, spatially-delimited fishing effort data are needed to accurately map fishing hotspots, i.e., areas of intense fishing activity. We suggest that estimates of fishing effort, not just target catch or yield, serve as a necessary measure of fishing activity, which is a key link to evaluating sustainability and environmental impacts of coastal fisheries

Systematic Grant and Funding Body Acknowledgment Data for Publications: An Examination of New Dimensions and New Controversies for Bibliometrics

Bibliographic databases are beginning to provide systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for the publications they index. This paper considers how this new data might be used for policy purposes and the key issues that are likely to arise in its use. While the attempt to provide this kind of systematic data is in its relative infancy, there is already sufficient information within the WOS database to examine a number of controversies in science studies. This paper considers one such issue, namely the relationship between the number of funding sources acknowledged and the citation impact of publications where a positive relationship has been assumed to exist. Analyses of sets of publications from 2009 from the journals Cell and Physical Review Letters give contrasting results, suggesting that our understanding of the issue of the relationship between the impact of a publication and the number of funding sources which it acknowledges is not fully understood and may be more complicated that previously considered. It is proposed that scientific research findings are packaged by researchers into papers in a variety of ways for a wide variety of purposes. Individual funding quanta from whatever source are not therefore inputs to papers directly; rather, such funding supports a process that has amongst its outcomes, the production of papers

COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts

© 2020 The Authors. Published by MIT Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00066The COVID-19 pandemic requires a fast response from researchers to help address biological, medical and public health issues to minimize its impact. In this rapidly evolving context, scholars, professionals and the public may need to quickly identify important new studies. In response, this paper assesses the coverage of scholarly databases and impact indicators during 21 March to 18 April 2020. The rapidly increasing volume of research, is particularly accessible through Dimensions, and less through Scopus, the Web of Science, and PubMed. Google Scholar’s results included many false matches. A few COVID-19 papers from the 21,395 in Dimensions were already highly cited, with substantial news and social media attention. For this topic, in contrast to previous studies, there seems to be a high degree of convergence between articles shared in the social web and citation counts, at least in the short term. In particular, articles that are extensively tweeted on the day first indexed are likely to be highly read and relatively highly cited three weeks later. Researchers needing wide scope literature searches (rather than health focused PubMed or medRxiv searches) should start with Dimensions (or Google Scholar) and can use tweet and Mendeley reader counts as indicators of likely importance

Is Medical Research Informing Professional Practice More Highly Cited? Evidence from AHFS DI Essentials in Drugs.com

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 21/02/2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2292-3 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Citation-based indicators are often used to help evaluate the impact of published medical studies, even though the research has the ultimate goal of improving human wellbeing. One direct way of influencing health outcomes is by guiding physicians and other medical professionals about which drugs to prescribe. A high profile source of this guidance is the AHFS DI Essentials product of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which gives systematic information for drug prescribers. AHFS DI Essentials documents, which are also indexed by Drugs.com, include references to academic studies and the referenced work is therefore helping patients by guiding drug prescribing. This article extracts AHFS DI Essentials documents from Drugs.com and assesses whether articles referenced in these information sheets have their value recognised by higher Scopus citation counts. A comparison of mean log-transformed citation counts between articles that are and are not referenced in AHFS DI Essentials shows that AHFS DI Essentials references are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. This suggests that medical research influencing drug prescribing is more cited than average

Representation of women's health in general medical versus women's health specialty journals: a content analysis

BACKGROUND: Women's health, traditionally defined, emphasises reproductive and maternal conditions without consideration of social contexts. Advocates urge a broader conceptualisation. The medical literature influences the definitions and delivery of women's health care. We compared how women's health was represented in leading general medical (GM) versus women's health specialty (WS) journals. METHODS: Original investigations published between January 1 – June 30, 1999 in leading GM (n = 514) and WS (n = 82) journals were compared. Data were collected from 99 GM and 82 WS articles on women's health. Independent reviewers conducted content analyses of sample characteristics, study design, and health topic. Each article was classified as "Traditional" (e.g. menstruation, breast cancer), "Non-traditional" (e.g. abuse, osteoporosis), or "Both." RESULTS: Of the GM articles, 53 (53.5%) focused solely on a traditional women's health topic; half were reproductive and half female cancers. In contrast, 22 (26.8%) WS articles were traditionally focused. A non-traditional topic was the sole focus of 27 (27.3%) GM articles versus 34 (41.5%) WS articles. One-fifth of GM and one-third of WS articles addressed both. RCTs dominated the GM articles, while 40% of WS articles used qualitative or mixed study designs. Leading sources of women's death and disability were not well covered in either type of journal. CONCLUSIONS: Most GM articles drew on a narrow definition of women's health. WS journals provided more balanced coverage, addressing social concerns in addition to "navel-to-knees" women's health. Since GM journals have wide impact, editorial decisions and peer review processes should promote a broader conceptualisation of women's health

Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: Study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research

Species and population specific gene expression in blood transcriptomes of marine turtles

Background: Transcriptomic data has demonstrated utility to advance the study of physiological diversity and organisms’ responses to environmental stressors. However, a lack of genomic resources and challenges associated with collecting high-quality RNA can limit its application for many wild populations. Minimally invasive blood sampling combined with de novo transcriptomic approaches has great potential to alleviate these barriers. Here, we advance these goals for marine turtles by generating high quality de novo blood transcriptome assemblies to characterize functional diversity and compare global transcriptional profiles between tissues, species, and foraging aggregations. Results: We generated high quality blood transcriptome assemblies for hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles. The functional diversity in assembled blood transcriptomes was comparable to those from more traditionally sampled tissues. A total of 31.3% of orthogroups identified were present in all four species, representing a core set of conserved genes expressed in blood and shared across marine turtle species. We observed strong species-specific expression of these genes, as well as distinct transcriptomic profiles between green turtle foraging aggregations that inhabit areas of greater or lesser anthropogenic disturbance. Conclusions: Obtaining global gene expression data through non-lethal, minimally invasive sampling can greatly expand the applications of RNA-sequencing in protected long-lived species such as marine turtles. The distinct differences in gene expression signatures between species and foraging aggregations provide insight into the functional genomics underlying the diversity in this ancient vertebrate lineage. The transcriptomic resources generated here can be used in further studies examining the evolutionary ecology and anthropogenic impacts on marine turtles

Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: A literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique

There is an increasing need both to understand the translation of biomedical research into improved healthcare and to assess the range of wider impacts from health research such as improved health policies, health practices and healthcare. Conducting such assessments is complex and new methods are being sought. Our new approach involves several steps. First, we developed a qualitative citation analysis technique to apply to biomedical research in order to assess the contribution that individual papers made to further research. Second, using this method, we then proposed to trace the citations to the original research through a series of generations of citing papers. Third, we aimed eventually to assess the wider impacts of the various generations. This article describes our comprehensive literature search to inform the new technique. We searched various databases, specific bibliometrics journals and the bibliographies of key papers. After excluding irrelevant papers we reviewed those remaining for either general or specific details that could inform development of our new technique. Various characteristics of citations were identified that had been found to predict their importance to the citing paper including the citation’s location; number of citation occasions and whether the author(s) of the cited paper were named within the citing paper. We combined these objective characteristics with subjective approaches also identified from the literature search to develop a citation categorisation technique that would allow us to achieve the first of the steps above, i.e., being able routinely to assess the contribution that individual papers make to further research.Medical Research Council as part of the MRC-NIHR Methodology Research Programme, and Professor Martin Buxton