Scientific Communication and Education

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

Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research

1. Nitesh Kumar Sharma
2. Ram Ayyala
3. Dhrithi Deshpande
4. Yesha Patel
5. Viorel Munteanu
6. Dumitru Ciorba
7. Viorel Bostan
8. Andrada Fiscutean
9. Mohammad Vahed
10. Aditya Sarkar
11. Ruiwei Guo
12. Andrew Moore
13. Nicholas Darci-Maher
14. Nicole Nogoy
15. Malak Abedalthagafi
16. Serghei Mangul

Reviewed by PREreview

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modeling insights on the persistence of spurious science

1. David Robert Grimes

Reviewed by PREreview