Scientific Communication and Education

Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

1. Natalie R Davidson
2. Casey S Greene

• Curated by eLife

  eLife assessment

  This important bibliometric analysis shows that authors of scientific papers whose names suggest they are female or East Asian get quoted less often in news stories about their work. While caveats are inevitable in this type of study, the evidence for the authors' claims is convincing, with a rigorous, and importantly, reproducible analysis of over 20,000 articles from across 15 years. This paper will be of interest to science journalists and to researchers who study science communication.

Reviewed by eLife, preLights

Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary

1. Tom E. Hardwicke
2. Sarah R. Schiavone
3. Beth Clarke
4. Simine Vazire

Reviewed by preLights

More than a token photo: humanizing scientists enhances student engagement

1. Robin A. Costello
2. Emily P. Driessen
3. Melissa K. Kjelvik
4. Elizabeth H. Schultheis
5. Rachel M. Youngblood
6. Ash T. Zemenick
7. Marjorie G. Weber
8. Cissy J. Ballen

Reviewed by PREreview

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 awards and the career progression of awardees

1. Nicole C Woitowich
2. Sarah R Hengel
3. Christopher Solis
4. Tauras P Vilgalys
5. Joel Babdor
6. Daniel J Tyrrell

• Curated by eLife

  eLife assessment

  This study follows the career trajectories of the winners of an early-career funding award in the United States, and finds that researchers with greater mobility, men, and those hired at well-funded institutions experience greater subsequent funding success. Using data on K99/R00 awards from the National Institutes of Health's grants management database, the authors provide compelling evidence documenting the inequalities that shape faculty funding opportunities and career pathways, and show that these inequalities disproportionately impact women and faculty working at particular institutions, including historically black colleges and universities. Overall, the article is an important addition to the literature examining inequality in biomedical research in the United States.

Reviewed by eLife

Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey

1. Kelly D. Cobey
2. Sanam Ebrahimzadeh
3. Matthew J. Page
4. Robert T. Thibault
5. Phi-Yen Nguyen
6. Farah Abu-Dalfa
7. David Moher

Reviewed by PREreview

“Important Enough to Show the World”: Using Authentic Research Opportunities and Micropublications to Build Students’ Science Identities

1. Lisa DaVia Rubenstein
2. Kelsey A. Woodruff
3. April M. Taylor
4. James B. Olesen
5. Philip J. Smaldino
6. Eric M. Rubenstein

Reviewed by PREreview

Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion

1. Trevor A. Branch
2. Isabelle M. Cȏté
3. Solomon R. David
4. Joshua A. Drew
5. Michelle LaRue
6. Melissa C. Márquez
7. E. C. M. Parsons
8. D. Rabaiotti
9. David Shiffman
10. David A. Steen
11. Alexander L. Wild

Reviewed by PREreview

Mentoring practices predictive of doctoral student outcomes in a biological sciences cohort

1. Reena Debray
2. Emily A. Dewald-Wang
3. Katherine K. Ennis

Reviewed by preLights

ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review

1. Jeroen PH Verharen

• Curated by eLife

  eLife assessment

  This study used ChatGPT to assess certain linguistic characteristics (sentiment and politeness) of 500 peer reviews for 200 neuroscience papers published in Nature Communications. The vast majority of reviews were polite, but papers with female first authors received less polite reviews than papers with male first authors, whereas papers with a female senior author received more favourable reviews than papers with a male senior author. Overall, the study is an important contribution to work on gender bias, and the evidence for the potential utility of generative AI programs like ChatGPT in meta-research is solid.

Reviewed by eLife

A Quantitative Study of Inappropriate Image Duplication in the Journal Toxicology Reports

1. Sholto David

Reviewed by PREreview