• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

生物医学合著中的多样性模式:跨作者种族、性别、年龄和专业知识的分析。

Patterns of diversity in biomedical coauthorships: An analysis across authors' ethnicity, gender, age, and expertise.

作者信息

Mishra Apratim, Lee Haejin, Jeoung Sullam, Torvik Vetle I, Diesner Jana

机构信息

School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States of America.

School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 31;20(1):e0316890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316890. eCollection 2025.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0316890
PMID:39888948
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11785319/
Abstract

Multiple studies have linked diversity in scientific collaborations to innovative and impactful research. Here, we explore how different diversity indices-ethnicity, gender, academic age, and topical expertise-interact and thereby influence scientific impact. Leveraging nearly 900,000 biomedical journal articles from PubMed, published in major journals between 1991 and 2014, we investigate the nuanced relationships among these diversity indices and their collective influence on research outcomes. By systematically varying model parametrizations, we assess the robustness of the observed relationships and examine multiple methodological choices. Our findings reveal a consistent pattern of demographic homophily, where scientists tend to collaborate with others who share similar ethnic and gender backgrounds. While each diversity index correlates significantly with impact when considered individually, gender diversity and topical expertise emerge as the strongest positive predictors of impact after accounting for key covariates. However, the association between diversity and impact is moderated by the number of collaborating authors, with larger teams sometimes showing opposite trends due to interactions between the computed diversity indices and team size. Despite this complexity, the practical drivers of scientific impact for an article remain the journal of publication, authors' prior citation rate, and the number of co-authors. On further examining expertise diversity through three separate dimensions: variety, balance, and disparity, our findings indicate that impactful teams balance a wide range of subject matter expertise while maintaining a focused connection on closely related topics. These findings highlight the importance of strategic team composition and underline the significance of team diversity in scientific research.

摘要

多项研究已将科学合作中的多样性与创新且有影响力的研究联系起来。在此,我们探讨不同的多样性指标——种族、性别、学术年龄和主题专业知识——如何相互作用,进而影响科学影响力。利用来自PubMed的近90万篇生物医学期刊文章,这些文章发表于1991年至2014年间的主要期刊上,我们研究了这些多样性指标之间的细微关系及其对研究成果的综合影响。通过系统地改变模型参数设置,我们评估了所观察到的关系的稳健性,并考察了多种方法选择。我们的研究结果揭示了一种一致的人口统计学同质性模式,即科学家倾向于与具有相似种族和性别背景的人合作。虽然每个多样性指标单独考虑时都与影响力显著相关,但在考虑关键协变量后,性别多样性和主题专业知识成为影响力最强的正向预测因素。然而,多样性与影响力之间的关联受到合作作者数量的调节,由于计算出的多样性指标与团队规模之间的相互作用,较大的团队有时会呈现相反的趋势。尽管存在这种复杂性,一篇文章科学影响力的实际驱动因素仍然是发表期刊、作者先前的被引率以及共同作者的数量。通过从三个不同维度进一步考察专业知识多样性:多样性、平衡性和差异性,我们的研究结果表明,有影响力的团队在保持对密切相关主题的专注联系的同时,平衡了广泛的主题专业知识。这些发现凸显了战略团队构成的重要性,并强调了团队多样性在科学研究中的意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/296633b31eed/pone.0316890.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/2db9237cb309/pone.0316890.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/594080d27d64/pone.0316890.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/732fc947e54e/pone.0316890.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/296633b31eed/pone.0316890.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/2db9237cb309/pone.0316890.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/594080d27d64/pone.0316890.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/732fc947e54e/pone.0316890.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ed/11785319/296633b31eed/pone.0316890.g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Patterns of diversity in biomedical coauthorships: An analysis across authors' ethnicity, gender, age, and expertise.生物医学合著中的多样性模式:跨作者种族、性别、年龄和专业知识的分析。
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 31;20(1):e0316890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316890. eCollection 2025.
2
Ethnicity and gender trends of UK authors in and the over the past two decades: a comprehensive longitudinal analysis.过去二十年英国作者在[具体领域1]和[具体领域2]中的种族和性别趋势:一项全面的纵向分析。
EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Sep 7;64:102174. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102174. eCollection 2023 Oct.
3
The Impact of Women-Led Academic Collaborations in Plastic Surgery.女性主导的整形外科学术合作的影响
Ann Plast Surg. 2025 May 1;94(5S Suppl 3):S417-S420. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004277.
4
Diversity in the medical research ecosystem: a descriptive scientometric analysis of over 49 000 studies and 150 000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022.医学研究生态系统中的多样性:对2007年至2022年期间发表在高影响力医学期刊上的49000多项研究和150000多名作者的描述性科学计量分析。
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 22;15(1):e086982. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086982.
5
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
6
Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years.尽管女性外科医生的数量不断增加,但在过去 30 多年中,骨科文献的作者性别差异仍然存在。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Jul;478(7):1542-1552. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000849.
7
Gender Disparity in the Authorship of Biomedical Research Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study.COVID-19 大流行期间生物医学研究出版物作者中的性别差异:回顾性观察研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 12;23(4):e25379. doi: 10.2196/25379.
8
Gender Disparities in Invited Commentary Authorship in 2459 Medical Journals.2459 种医学期刊特邀评论作者中的性别差异。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1913682. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13682.
9
Neuro-oncology authorship trends in gender since 1944: a systematic review of 14,020 articles from five top-tier academic journals.自 1944 年以来神经肿瘤学作者性别趋势的系统评价:对五个顶级学术期刊的 14020 篇文章的分析。
J Neurosurg. 2022 Nov 25;139(1):1-10. doi: 10.3171/2022.10.JNS221183. Print 2023 Jul 1.
10
Network effects on scientific collaborations.网络效应对科学合作的影响。
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057546. Epub 2013 Feb 28.

本文引用的文献

1
Inclusion unlocks the creative potential of gender diversity in teams.包容解锁了团队中性别多样性的创造潜力。
Sci Rep. 2023 Aug 23;13(1):13757. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39922-9.
2
Labor advantages drive the greater productivity of faculty at elite universities.劳动力优势推动了精英大学教师更高的生产力。
Sci Adv. 2022 Nov 16;8(46):eabq7056. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abq7056. Epub 2022 Nov 18.
3
Specification curve analysis.规范曲线分析。
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Nov;4(11):1208-1214. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0912-z. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
4
The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration.科学合作中种族多样性的卓越性。
Nat Commun. 2018 Dec 4;9(1):5163. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07634-8.
5
Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender.自引是高产作者的标志,无论性别。
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0195773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195773. eCollection 2018.
6
Cooperation makes two less-creative individuals turn into a highly-creative pair.合作使两个创造力较低的个体变成一对极具创造力的搭档。
Neuroimage. 2018 May 15;172:527-537. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
7
Open countries have strong science.开放的国家拥有强大的科学实力。
Nature. 2017 Oct 4;550(7674):32-33. doi: 10.1038/550032a.
8
Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science.观点:性别多样性带来更出色的科学成果。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Feb 21;114(8):1740-1742. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1700616114.
9
Quantifying Conceptual Novelty in the Biomedical Literature.量化生物医学文献中的概念新颖性。
Dlib Mag. 2016 Sep-Oct;22(9-10). doi: 10.1045/september2016-mishra.
10
Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.相对引用率(RCR):一种利用引用率在文章层面衡量影响力的新指标。
PLoS Biol. 2016 Sep 6;14(9):e1002541. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541. eCollection 2016 Sep.