bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Martinig, A. R.

Publications and source records attributed to Martinig, A. R..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Best Paper awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But, do awards incentivise greater transparency, diversity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions are brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups are not explicitly encouraged and concepts that align with Open Science are almost absent from the assessment criteria. Instead, such awards increasingly rely on article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winners pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one-percent of individual winners were men. Thus, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.

scientific communication and education↗

Keywords to success: a practical guide to maximise the visibility and impact of academic papers

In a growing digital landscape, enhancing the discoverability and resonance of scientific articles is essential. Here, we offer ten recommendations to amplify the discoverability of studies in scientific databases. Particularly, we argue that the strategic use and placement of key terms in the title, abstract, and keyword sections can boost indexing and appeal. By surveying 237 journals in ecology and evolutionary biology, we found that current author guidelines may unintentionally limit article discoverability. Our survey of 5842 studies revealed that authors frequently exhaust abstract word limits -- particularly those capped under 250 words. This suggests that current guidelines may be overly restrictive and not optimised to increase the dissemination and discoverability of digital publications. Additionally, 91.9% of studies used redundant keywords in the title or abstract, undermining optimal indexing in databases. We encourage adopting structured abstracts to maximise the incorporation of key terms in titles, abstracts, and keywords. In addition, we encourage the relaxation of abstract and keyword limitations in journals with strict guidelines, and the inclusion of multilingual abstracts to broaden global accessibility. These evidence-based recommendations to editors are designed to improve article engagement and facilitate evidence synthesis, thereby aligning scientific publishing with the modern needs of academic research.

scientific communication and education↗