Collective credit allocation in science

Collaboration among researchers is an essential component of the modern scientific enterprise, playing a particularly important role in multidisciplinary research. However, we continue to wrestle with allocating credit to the coauthors of publications with multiple authors, because the relative contribution of each author is difficult to determine. At the same time, the scientific community runs an informal field-dependent credit allocation process that assigns credit in a collective fashion to each work. Here we develop a credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors’ contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community, reproducing the informal collective credit allocation of science. We validate the method by identifying the authors of Nobel-winning papers that are credited for the discovery, independent of their positions in the author list. The method can also compare the relative impact of researchers working in the same field, even if they did not publish together. The ability to accurately measure the relative credit of researchers could affect many aspects of credit allocation in science, potentially impacting hiring, funding, and promotion decisions.Reflecting the increasing complexity of modern research, in the last decades, collaboration among researchers became a standard path to discovery (1). Collaboration plays a particularly important role in multidisciplinary research that requires expertise from different scientific fields (2). As the number of coauthors of each publication increases, science’s credit system is under pressure to evolve (3–5). For single-author papers, which were the norm decades ago, credit allocation is simple: the sole author gets all of the credit. This rule, accepted since the birth of science, fails for multiauthor papers (6). The lack of a robust credit allocation system that can account for the discrepancy between researchers’ contribution to a particular body of work and the credit they obtain, has prompted some to state that “multiple authorship endangers the author credit system” (7). This situation is particularly acute in multidisciplinary research (8, 9), when communities with different credit allocation traditions collaborate (10). Furthermore, a detailed understanding of the rules underlying credit allocation is crucial for an accurate assessment of each researcher’s scientific impact, affecting hiring, funding, and promotion decisions.Current approaches to allocating scientific credit fall in three main categories. The first views each author of a multiauthor publication as the sole author (11, 12), resulting in inflated scientific impact for publications with multiple authors. This system is biased toward researchers with multiple collaborations or large teams, customary in experimental particle physics or genomics. The second assumes that all coauthors contribute equally to a publication, allocating fractional credit evenly among them (13, 14). This approach ignores the fact that authors’ contributions are never equal and hence dilutes the credit of the intellectual leader. The third allocates scientific credit according to the order or the role of coauthors, interpreting a message agreed on within the respective discipline (15–17). For example, in biology, typically the first and the last author(s) get the lion’s share of the credit, and in some areas of physical sciences, the author list reflects a decreasing degree of contribution. An extreme case is offered by experimental particle physics, where the author list is alphabetic, making it impossible to interpret the author contributions without exogenous information. Finally, there is an increasing trend to allocate credit based on the specific contribution of each author (18, 19), specified in the contribution declaration required by some journals (20, 21). However, each of these approaches ignores the most important aspect of credit allocation: notwithstanding the agreed on order, credit allocation is a collective process (22–24), which is determined by the scientific community rather than the coauthors or the order of the authors in a paper. This phenomena is clearly illustrated by the 2012 Nobel prize in physics that was awarded based on discoveries reported in publications whose last authors were the laureates (25, 26), whereas the 2007 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to the third author of a nine-author paper (27) and the first author of a five-author publication (28). Clearly the scientific community operates an informal credit allocation system that may not be obvious to those outside of the particular discipline.The leading hypothesis of this work is that the information about the informal credit allocation within science is encoded in the detailed citation pattern of the respective paper and other papers published by the same authors on the same subject. Indeed, each citing paper expresses its perception of the scientific impact of a paper’s coauthors by citing other contributions by them, conveying implicit information about the perceived contribution of each author. Our goal is to design an algorithm that can capture in a discipline-independent fashion the way this informal collective credit allocation mechanism develops.     

Clinical status of Sagliker syndrome: a case report and literature review

In a 53-year-old woman, Sagliker syndrome developed during 22 years of treatment with intermittent hemodialysis as a result of severe secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) complicating end-stage renal disease. She failed medical managements and lost her renal graft just after the kidney transplantation due to acute rejection. Although surgical parathyroidectomy was effective, the parathyroid hormone level became extremely high again due to recurrent hyperparathyroidism. It is possible that such patient could survive long-term with dialysis, but prevention of severe SHPT is the most important.     

导入JCI医院认证评审标准加强医院感染管理

为保证病人安全,提高医疗服务质量,探讨加强医院感染管理的新思路。导入JCI医院认证的思想,介绍JCI认证的内涵以及JCI认证医院感染的标准、特色。结合当前医院感染管理的实际情况发现医院感染管理在制度、监测、暴发调查、干预、个人防护、人员管理和培训、信息管理等方面尚存在一定不足。借鉴发达国家经验,提出加强医院感染管理的策略和启示。     

Concomitant mediastinal and extrarenal retroperitoneal angiomyolipomas in a patient who previously underwent ipsilateral radical nephrectomy

The association of the tuberous sclerosis complex with angiomyolipoma (AML) arising from the retroperitoneum and mediastinum has not been reported in the literature. We present the first case in which a patient presented with a combined retroperitoneal extrarenal and posterior mediastinal AML. Interestingly, the ipsilateral retroperitoneal AML emerged 15 years after radical nephrectomy for the left renal AML.     

心肺运动试验对COPD的评估价值

采用自行车功率计做功，通过体积描记仪和能耗测试系统，监测３８例男性慢性阻塞性肺疾病（ＣＯＰＤ）患者和３０例正常男性对照者的心肺运动试验，发现运动试验指标与年龄呈负相关；ＣＯＰＤ组做功、每分通气量、摄氧量、ＣＯ２产生量的改变与用力肺活量、最大呼气中段流量、第一秒用力呼气量、呼气流量峰值等反映阻塞性通气障碍的肺功能指标显著相关提示心肺运动试验主要指标的改变可反映阻塞性通气功能障碍，有助于ＣＯＰＤ的评估     

异丙酚静脉麻醉辅助胃肠镜检查的临床应用

目的：2003年6月～2004年6月对860例胃镜检查，490例肠镜检查病人辅以使用异丙酚静脉麻醉检查．分析探讨异丙酚应用于内镜检查中的适应人群、最佳剂量、安全性、顺应性和临床意义。方法：本组病例均无胃肠镜检查及异丙酚麻醉禁忌证，术前与患者签定知情同意书．开通静脉通道。备好各种抢救物品及药品。作好BP、HR、SpO2监护，并作记录。结果：注射异丙酚后，起效时间为15～20s，用药量在100～200mg，检查后对操作过程完全遗忘100％，满意100％。围内镜检查期，BP、HR、SPO2基本维持在正常范围，胃肠镜操作比患者清醒时检查更为顺利。结论：应用异丙酚静脉麻醉辅助内镜检查显著改善病人耐受性，也具有较好的安全性和顺应性，值得推广应用。     

Spectrum of the inferior vena cava: MDCT findings

Inferior vena cava (IVC) abnormalities are not uncommon. Congential anomalies, thrombosis, neoplasms, and obstructive lesions can involve IVC. With the wide use of multidetector CT, it has demonstrated its ability to display the abnormalities of IVC. Congenital anomalies, thrombosis, neoplasms, and stenosis or obstructive diseases and other abnormalities can be demonstrated by MDCT. We present a pictorial essay to illustrate its roles in detecting and defining the nature of lesions of IVC, from the anatomy to disease spectrum of IVC.     

酸枣仁汤对血虚小鼠的镇静催眠作用

目的:观察机体在血虚模型状况下,酸枣仁汤的镇静催眠作用。方法:①实验于2004-03/05在中国药科大学中医药教研室实验室完成。选用昆明种雄性小鼠246只。②观察酸枣仁汤(酸枣仁、甘草、知母、茯苓、川芎经煎煮制成酸枣仁汤颗粒。酸枣仁颗粒溶于蒸馏水,制成0.6,1.2,2.4g/mL溶液)对血虚小鼠戊巴比妥钠致睡眠时间的影响:取昆明种小鼠60只,随机分为5组:正常对照组、模型组(灌服生理盐水),酸枣仁汤低、中、高剂量组(灌服酸枣仁汤生药量6,12,24g/kg),每组12只。除正常对照组以外,其余各组造失血性贫血模型:小鼠眼眶放血0.5mL,24h后给药,连续给药5d,最后1d给药1h后,腹腔注射戊巴比妥钠35mg/kg。15min内翻正反射消失达30s以上为进入睡眠,翻正反射恢复为清醒,其间为睡眠时间,记录各组小鼠的睡眠潜伏期和睡眠期。③观察酸枣仁汤对血虚小鼠戊巴比妥钠阈下催眠剂量的影响:取昆明种小鼠66只,随机分成5组:正常对照组、模型组(n=12,21),酸枣仁汤低、中、高剂量组(n=11,12,10)。每组干预时间及干预措施同睡眠时间实验。分别腹腔注射戊巴比妥钠27mg/kg。腹腔注射后15min内翻正反射消失1min(睡眠)记为阳性(+),否则(清醒)记为阴性(-)。④观察酸枣仁汤对血虚小鼠自发活动的影响:每组小鼠只数、干预措施及干预时间同“睡眠时间”观察,进行旷野法实验:将小鼠放入直径30cm,高20cm的圆柱型笼中,笼底部分为19格,笼上方1m处放置60W白炽灯,描记小鼠在笼内2min的活动轨迹,轨迹与笼底格线相交记为1次。⑤观察酸枣仁汤对血虚小鼠血红蛋白的影响:每组小鼠只数、干预措施及干预时间同“睡眠时间”观察。用HiCN法测血红蛋白含量,给药第1天,第6天分别测血红蛋白含量,比较血红蛋白的变化值。⑥计数结果差异比较采用χ2Test孙氏直接概率法,组间计量结果比较采用t检验。结果:小鼠246只均进入结果分析。①酸枣仁汤低、高剂量组睡眠潜伏期明显短于模型组(P<0.01,0.05),睡眠期明显长于模型组(P<0.05)。②酸枣仁汤高、低剂量组睡眠小鼠只数明显多于模型组(P<0.05),清醒小鼠只数明显少于模型组(P<0.05)。③模型组小鼠自发活动次数明显少于对照组(P<0.01),酸枣仁汤中剂量组小鼠自发活动次数明显多于模型组(P<0.05)。④治疗前模型组小鼠血红蛋白含量明显低于对照组,治疗后酸枣仁汤中、高剂量组小鼠血红蛋白含量变化值明显高于模型组(P<0.05)。结论:①酸枣仁汤对机体在血虚小鼠具有镇静催眠作用。②酸枣仁汤能提高血虚小鼠血红蛋白含量,改善血虚症状,该作用具有剂量依赖性。