bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/487397

Who is researching biodiversity hotspots in Eastern Europe? A case study on grasslands from Romania

Nita, A.·Hartel, T.·Manolache, S.·Ciocanea, C.-M. M.·Miu, I. V.·Rozylowicz, L.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Farming landscapes of Europe are vital arenas for social-ecological sustainability because of their significant coverage and potential to integrate food production with biodiversity conservation. Knowledge gathered by scientific research is a critical ingredient for developing and implementing socio-economically and ecologically sustainable grassland management strategies for grasslands. The quality of scientific knowledge and its potential to address grasslands as complex social-ecological systems is strongly dependent on the creativity and scientific ambition of the researcher, but also on the network (from academic and non-academic sectors) around the researcher. The goal of this paper is to map the research network around Romanias grasslands. These systems have exceptional socio-cultural and economic values and are between the most biodiverse ecosystems of the world. Considering the multiple threats to these grasslands, it is an urgent need to understand the existing scientific knowledge profile around these systems. This paper aims at using bibliometrics analysis, a well-developed scientific domain that envisages network theory to analyze relationships between affiliations network, co-authorship network, and co-word analysis. The number of studies targeting grassland management in Romania is increasing mainly thanks to international involvement. However, the management of the grasslands is still deficient and the contribution of science to the process is virtually absent. The subject of research is mainly related to the biological and ecological characteristics of grasslands, a notable absence from internationally visible research being the management of grasslands, especially in the context of EU Common Agricultural Policies. To increase scientific performance, and better inform EU and local policies on grassland management, Romanian researchers should better capitalize on international collaborations and local academic leaders. Our findings can be used to identify research gaps and to improve collaboration and knowledge exchange between practitioners, scientists, policy makers, and stakeholders.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nita, A., Hartel, T., Manolache, S., Ciocanea, C.-M. M., Miu, I. V., Rozylowicz, L.. 2018-12-08. Who is researching biodiversity hotspots in Eastern Europe? A case study on grasslands from Romania. https://doi.org/10.1101/487397

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗