Sabine Müller on the hierarchical system of German academia and why it could be a problem for the wellbeing of young academics and Ph.D. candidates. She compares it to her experiences at Oxford University and sheds light on the differences between the two research cultures.
A group of researchers from the German N² network presents the results of a survey among PhD students on the abuse of power in science and outlines ways to counter it
Ruixue Jia on the influence of administrative power in Chinese academia on researchers’ publication activity, their selection of co-authors, and the topics they are writing about.
Gorup & Laufer on how control is exercised and abused within relationships between doctoral supervisors and their students, what happens when PhD students challenge this control, and how we break free of this cycle of control.
Julia T. Scho on the challenges and positive experiences of researchers and scientists working around the globe during the pandemic
Glaucia Souza on the introduction of BioFuels in Sao Paulo and all over Brazil, her activities at BIOEN and the transfer of technologies for more sustainable forms of mobility into practice.
A number of social, technical and political-economic problems call to rethink the current practice of funding and governing research infrastructures.
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes analyses four dimensions of twitter metrics around science in a quantitative study.
Fecher and Kobsda introduce the Research Impact Canvas – a structured guide to plan science communication activities.
Martin Etzrodt’s take on the need of distributed organisations in collaborative research.
Su Golder and Gill Norman analyse the complex ethical considerations researchers face using social media data.
Three examples for library engagement in trust: scholarly communication literacy, information quality and legal certainty.
Twitter is a centerpiece of modern public communication. But the question must be asked: Is Twitter worth all that attention?
Do we have an inequality problem in academia? – Crossposting from ScienceMetrics
Promoting data sharing by improving data information literacy in German academic libraries
Bibliometrics for the 20 highest performing authors in Multidisciplinary Science.
The 20 highest performing authors in Mathematics publish third most articles but have comparably low bibliometrics.
Bibliometrics for the subject areas Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, as well as Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics for the 20 highest performing authors
Bibliometrics for the subject areas Arts and Humanities as well as Social Sciences for the 20 highest performing authors.
Bibliometrics for the subject areas Computer Science and Decision Sciences for the 20 highest performing authors.
Bibliometrics for the subject areas Dentistry, Health Professions, Nursing, and Psychology for the 20 highest performing authors.
On average, Immunology and Microbiology, Neuroscience as well as Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology have the highest citation rates.
Bibliometrics of the 20 highest performing authors in Earth and Planetary Sciences as well as Environmental Sciences.
Bibliometrics of the 20 highest performing authors in Agricultural and Biological Sciences as well as Veterinary Science.
Bibliometrics of the 20 highest performing authors in Business, Management, and Accounting as well as Economics, Econometrics, and Finance.
Bibliometrics of the 20 highest performing authors in Energy, Engineering, and Materials Science.
The 20 highest performing authors in Medicine published more than 7700 articles in seven years.
Methodology for analysing the number of authors per article using meta data from Scopus.
On average, the 20 highest performing authors in Physics and Astronomy have more than 1200 coauthors per article.