Predicting publication success for biologists

BioScience

Volumn 63, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 817-823

  Laurance, William F ^a,b   Useche, D Carolina ^c   Laurance, Susan G ^a,d   Bradshaw, Corey J A ^e  

^a JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN DE RECURSOS BIOLÓGICOS ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT   (Colombia)

^d Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Academic performance; Gender; Language; Publication success; University ranking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886668550     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.9     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Acuna DE, Allesina S, Kording KP. 2012. Predicting scientific success. Nature 489: 201-202.
2. Allison PD, Stewart, JA. 1974. Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative disadvantage. American Sociological Review 39: 596-606.
3. Altbach PG. 2010. The state of the rankings. Inside Higher Ed. (27 June 2013; www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/11/11/altbach)
4. Barjak F. 2006. The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 1350-1367.
5. Bornmann L, Mungra P. 2011. Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing 37: 41-43.
6. Bradshaw CJA, McMahon CR, Miller PS, Lacy RC, Watts MJ, Verant ML, Pollak JP, Fordham DA, Prowse TAA, Brook BW. 2012. Novel coupling of individual-based epidemiological and demographic models predicts realistic dynamics of tuberculosis in alien buffalo. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 268-277.
7. Brown H. 2008. Gender bias remains prevalent in the biological sciences. Molecular Oncology 2: 293-295.
8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed. Springer.
9. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. 2011. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108: 3157-3162.
10. Davison AC, Hinkley DV. 1997. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge University Press.
11. Dugdale HL, Hinsch M, Schroeder J. 2011. Biased sampling: No "Homer Simpson effect" among high achievers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26: 622-623.
12. Ferguson G, Pérez-Llantada C, Plo R. 2011. English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes 30: 41-59.
13. Fischer J, Ritchie EG, Hanspach J. 2012. Academia's obsession with quantity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 473-474.
14. Hirsch JE. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 16569-16572.
15. - - - . 2007. Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 19193-19198.
16. Holt A, Webb T. 2007. Gender in ecology: Where are the female professors? Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 38: 51-62.
17. Larsen PO, von Ins M. 2010. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84: 575-603.
18. Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Useche DC. 2011. Gender differences in science: No support for the "Homer Simpson effect" among tropical researchers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26: 262-263.
19. Leahey E. 2007. Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review 72: 533-561.
20. Lee S, Bozeman B. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35: 673-702.
21. Link WA, Barker RJ. 2006. Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference. Ecology 87: 2626-2635.
22. Long JS. 1992. Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces 71: 159-178.
23. McGuire KL, Primack RB, Losos EC. 2012. Dramatic improvements and persistent challenges for women ecologists. BioScience 62: 189-196.
24. Meneghini R, Packer AL. 2007. Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication. EMBO Reports 8: 112-116.
25. Monge-Nájera J, Nielsen V. 2005. The countries and languages that dominate biological research at the beginning of the 21st century. Revista de Biología Tropical 53: 283-294.
26. Monosson E, ed. 2008. Motherhood, the Elephant in the Laboratory: Women Scientists Speak Out. Cornell University Press.
27. Moss-Racusin CA, Rudman LA. 2010. Disruptions in women's selfpromotion: The backlash avoidance model. Psychology of Women Quarterly 34: 186-202. Nature. 2011. Women feel isolated. Nature 474: 409.
28. O'Brien KR, Hapgood KP. 2012. The academic jungle: Ecosystem modelling reveals why women are driven out of research. Oikos 121: 999-1004.
29. Primack RB, Marrs R. 2008. Bias in the review process. Biological Conservation 141: 2919-2920.
30. Primack RB, O'Leary V. 1993. Cumulative disadvantages in the careers of women ecologists. BioScience 43: 158-165.
31. Primack RB, Stacy EA. 1997. Women ecologists are catching up in scientific productivity, but only when they join the race. BioScience 47: 169-174.
32. Primack RB, Ellwood E, Miller-Rushing AJ, Marrs R, Mulligan A. 2009. Do gender, nationality or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation 142: 2415-2418.
33. Reskin BF. 1977. Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American Sociological Review 42: 491-504.
34. Symonds MRE. 2004. Nature and Science know best. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 564.
35. Zuckerman H. 1967. Nobel Laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review 32: 391-403.