Bias in the journal impact factor

The ISI journal impact factor (JIF) is based on a sample that may represent half the whole-of-life citations to some journals, but a small fraction (<10%) of the citations accruing to other journals. This disproportionate sampling means that the JIF provides a misleading indication of the true impact of journals, biased in favour of journals that have a rapid rather than a prolonged impact. Many journals exhibit a consistent pattern of citation accrual from year to year, so it may be possible to adjust the JIF to provide a more reliable indication of a journal's impact.Comment: 9 pages, 8 figures; one reference correcte

A quantitative analysis of measures of quality in science

Condensing the work of any academic scientist into a one-dimensional measure of scientific quality is a difficult problem. Here, we employ Bayesian statistics to analyze several different measures of quality. Specifically, we determine each measure's ability to discriminate between scientific authors. Using scaling arguments, we demonstrate that the best of these measures require approximately 50 papers to draw conclusions regarding long term scientific performance with usefully small statistical uncertainties. Further, the approach described here permits the value-free (i.e., statistical) comparison of scientists working in distinct areas of science.Comment: 11 pages, 8 figures, 4 table

A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions

The large amount of information contained in bibliographic databases has recently boosted the use of citations, and other indicators based on citation numbers, as tools for the quantitative assessment of scientific research. Citations counts are often interpreted as proxies for the scientific influence of papers, journals, scholars, and institutions. However, a rigorous and scientifically grounded methodology for a correct use of citation counts is still missing. In particular, cross-disciplinary comparisons in terms of raw citation counts systematically favors scientific disciplines with higher citation and publication rates. Here we perform an exhaustive study of the citation patterns of millions of papers, and derive a simple transformation of citation counts able to suppress the disproportionate citation counts among scientific domains. We find that the transformation is well described by a power-law function, and that the parameter values of the transformation are typical features of each scientific discipline. Universal properties of citation patterns descend therefore from the fact that citation distributions for papers in a specific field are all part of the same family of univariate distributions.Comment: 9 pages, 6 figures. Supporting information files available at http://filrad.homelinux.or

Autophagy proteins control goblet cell function by potentiating reactive oxygen species production

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102240/1/embj2013233-reviewer_comments.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102240/2/embj2013233-sup-0001.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102240/3/embj2013233.pd

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

Universality of Performance Indicators based on Citation and Reference Counts

We find evidence for the universality of two relative bibliometric indicators of the quality of individual scientific publications taken from different data sets. One of these is a new index that considers both citation and reference counts. We demonstrate this universality for relatively well cited publications from a single institute, grouped by year of publication and by faculty or by department. We show similar behaviour in publications submitted to the arXiv e-print archive, grouped by year of submission and by sub-archive. We also find that for reasonably well cited papers this distribution is well fitted by a lognormal with a variance of around 1.3 which is consistent with the results of Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008). Our work demonstrates that comparisons can be made between publications from different disciplines and publication dates, regardless of their citation count and without expensive access to the whole world-wide citation graph. Further, it shows that averages of the logarithm of such relative bibliometric indices deal with the issue of long tails and avoid the need for statistics based on lengthy ranking procedures.Comment: 15 pages, 14 figures, 11 pages of supplementary material. Submitted to Scientometric

Cooperativity between the preproinsulin mRNA untranslated regions Is necessary for glucose-stimulated translation

Glucose regulates proinsulin biosynthesis via stimulation of the translation of the preproinsulin mRNA in pancreatic β-cells. However, the mechanism by which this occurs has remained unclear. Using recombinant adenoviruses that express the preproinsulin mRNA with defined alterations, the untranslated regions (UTRs) of the preproinsulin mRNA were examined for elements that specifically control translation of the mRNA in rat pancreatic islets. These studies revealed that the preproinsulin 5′-UTR was necessary for glucose stimulation of preproinsulin mRNA translation, whereas the 3′-UTR appeared to suppress translation. However, together the 5′- and 3′-UTRs acted cooperatively to markedly increase glucose-induced proinsulin biosynthesis. In primary hepatocytes the presence of the preproinsulin 3′-UTR led to reduced mRNA levels compared with the presence of the SV40 3′-UTR, consistent with the presence of mRNA stability determinants in the 3′-UTR that stabilize the preproinsulin mRNA in a pancreatic β-cell-specific manner. Translation of these mRNAs in primary hepatocytes was not stimulated by glucose, indicating that regulated translation of the preproinsulin mRNA occurs in a pancreatic β-cell-specific manner. Thus, the untranslated regions of the preproinsulin mRNA play crucial roles in regulating insulin production and therefore glucose homeostasis by regulating the translation and the stability of the preproinsulin mRNA

AMBRA1 is able to induce mitophagy via LC3 binding, regardless of PARKIN and p62/SQSTM1

Damaged mitochondria are eliminated by mitophagy, a selective form of autophagy whose dysfunction associates with neurodegenerative diseases. PINK1, PARKIN and p62/SQTMS1 have been shown to regulate mitophagy, leaving hitherto ill-defined the contribution by key players in 'general' autophagy. In basal conditions, a pool of AMBRA1 - an upstream autophagy regulator and a PARKIN interactor - is present at the mitochondria, where its pro-autophagic activity is inhibited by Bcl-2. Here we show that, upon mitophagy induction, AMBRA1 binds the autophagosome adapter LC3 through a LIR (LC3 interacting region) motif, this interaction being crucial for regulating both canonical PARKIN-dependent and -independent mitochondrial clearance. Moreover, forcing AMBRA1 localization to the outer mitochondrial membrane unleashes a massive PARKIN- and p62-independent but LC3-dependent mitophagy. These results highlight a novel role for AMBRA1 as a powerful mitophagy regulator, through both canonical or noncanonical pathways

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK’s national research assessment exercise

Purpose There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies. Design and methodology To examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom’s recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF’s results and HEFCE’s funding allocations. Findings A world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles. Practical implications The findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general. Originality According to the author’s knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output