Scientific publication – Wikipedia

Posted on by

One Scientific publication or Specialist publication (often easy in jargon Paper If it is not a monograph) is a written scientific work by one or more authors whose publication (publication) has already been provided for or has already taken place at a science publisher.

The most common is the publication of individual essays in specialist journals, followed by contributions to conference and collection works. The publication process usually includes a prior assessment by (mostly anonymous) specialist colleagues today (referees) In a review process. On the other hand, for teaching and manuals generally relevant scientists are used as authors “by ordering”, and a possible “refereeing” procedure before the final printing depends on the specific case.

In the run -up to conferences and conferences, often in one Call for papers requested to submit scientific contributions.

Publish scientists to

  • to present their research results of the scientific community (their subject); This is the only way to “exist” and can be cited;
  • to stimulate other researchers on technical discussions and further studies;
  • to show that they already had the results at a certain point in time; This evidence function is reminiscent of patenting an invention;
  • to profil yourself in your subject, which is important for the employment or also for the allocation of research funds (“Publish or Perish”);
  • To receive money for this publication (royalties, etc.);
  • To present yourself to a general public and to make advertising for yourself and your ideas; This option depends on the subject.

In some specialist areas, the publication tire manuscripts on internet servers often occurs in some specialist areas (referred to in the jargon), as the Arxiv.org founded in 1991 and operated by the Cornell Tech. In the meantime (as of 2020) there are over 50 different Preprint providers. [first] [2] Preprint publication is already understood as “crucial”. [3]

The background to this is that in almost all science areas, the number and quality of the publications serve as proof of successful scientific research. [4] External interventions and restrictions are generally not intended for material reasons and in principle (“freedom of research”). In some specialist areas – especially in medicine, pharmacology, engineering and military relevance or patent issues – the publication of a fact discovered by research is excluded or restricted by the external side. So-called non-disclosure Agreements (NDAS) often play a role in industry. [5] [6] [7]

Apart from the interests of the public, publication of new knowledge is especially essential for science itself so that other scientists can gain access to this knowledge and develop new research ideas. [8] [9]

Under the term “scientific publication”, all essays in published scientific book trade media (such as “Journal for …”). Also recognized publications are patent writings and utility patterns. [ten] The so -called “gray literature” is also consulted; This means, for example, university writings (e.g. doctoral theses, diploma theses), “internal reports” by research institutes and corporate writings. Internet documents that belong analogously to the areas mentioned above are also common types of scientific publication.

The deposit of a work in archives or libraries is not a sufficient form of publication. Expert reports, artifacts, taste patterns, trademarks or internal reports usually also have no attention as a publication carrier. The same applies to internet documents that do without a publisher, for example, such as a private homepage.

The publication of scientific results or teaching opinions can take place in several ways. A distinction is made between independent publications (monograph) and dependent publications (essay, article, report, etc.):

  • Monograph: A mostly extensive publication in which a problem area is systematically and completely treated (see also textbook, manual).
  • Article in specialist journals ( Specialist articles ): These contributions are usually less extensive (unless the magazine specializes in reviews) and present i. d. R. New results for a specialist audience. The manuscripts must meet formal and content -related criteria in order to Peer-Review -process (see there) to be accepted for publication.
  • Articles in conference volumes: Such publications have a similar extent to articles in magazines, but quality control is often less comprehensive because the band must be finished on a specific date. Often deficiencies in accepted articles are only improved by the authors without the revision of going through the review process again. However, articles in conference volumes are still very up to date in conference volumes.
  • Approach in collecting plants: from the circumference you are comparable to articles in specialist journals. However, they usually have a close thematic connection to the other essays of the respective collective work.
  • Contributions to commemorations that are devoted to well -known scientists or institutes to an anniversary: ​​the criteria are similar to a conference band, but the topics of the authors (who often come from the student group of the honored) usually have a greater technical diversity and are i. d. R. not referenced before laying.

Types of publication [ Edit | Edit the source text ]

The different specialist areas lay different weights on individual types of publication: For example, in physics, biology and economics, mostly publications in specialist journals are perceived, but articles in conference volumes are less perceived; In the computer science, on the other hand, there is more publication at conferences; In the humanities, the forms of publication, specialist journal articles, collective work and monograph appear side by side.

Monographs and collecting works can appear in book series, which means that they are assigned to a mostly clearly defined topic, e.g. B. Ullmann’s encyclopedia of technical chemistry.

For example, the assignment of publications to authors is done using Orcid. [11]

Open Access [ Edit | Edit the source text ]

In general, the weighting and recognition of electronic internet publications, especially those that z. B. are only published in the Open Access on the Internet: significantly changed:

For 2020, the top 100 Altmetric are distributed as follows: 46 publications Open Access, 29 Closed and 25 “Free To Read”. [twelfth] [13] A study from 2018 found that 28% of all publications in journals are freely accessible and available online and notes that this trend has increased steadily in the past 20 years. [14] [15] A further analysis by Altmetric for 2017 showed that 42 (84%) of the top 50 articles were published as “Open Access”. [16] [17]

Frontiers, an open publisher with 129 peer-reviewed journals, is in third place in the ranking according to ACS and RSC during the quotes. [18]

The famous Royal Society (UK) follows after the Transformative Journals -Methodology (see also: Plan S) [19] to transfer their research journals into the Open Access model when 75% of the articles are published as “Open Access”. [20]

Peer-Review [ Edit | Edit the source text ]

In the peer review process, experts (mostly experts from the department) check the work on scientific quality. The Peer-Review Process can run over several months for publications in magazines (sometimes longer, for example in economics or astronomy, where it can even take several years), but usually ensures high quality. Furthermore, specialist articles in such journal are analyzed by the readership in the form of reviews, which represents another control body.

The peer review itself is also up for debate these days. [21] [22] [23] [24] There is also its own congress on the subject of peer review. [25]

Scientific works published in self -published, whether on the Internet or, for example Book-on-Demand generally enjoy little or no recognition, at least if the work has not taken a peer review or the author is little known. [26] In many cases, only those works are considered published that can be assigned to a so -called ISBN or ISSN. [27] [28]

Fraud [ Edit | Edit the source text ]

Warning before the publication in so -called “robbery journals”. [29]

Natural and social sciences [ Edit | Edit the source text ]

Natural and social science essays often have the following structure:

  • title
  • Authors: Including all co -authors, with contact address of a correspondence author ( corresponding author ). In the case of published theses, the head of the working group is usually the last, the main author as the first. However, there are different views, which can lead to misunderstandings about the respective contribution of the individual co -authors. A team often works on a scientific (research) project, of which of course everyone also has an interest in the fact that their name is published accordingly; This is particularly important for the reason to develop a call, which in turn is important for the future project financing and career of the researcher. As a result, the authors are usually mentioned – as mentioned – in a descending importance of the contributions. Alternatively, an alphabetical order is also possible, within which the main authors are then still specially marked. [30]
  • Abstract : A short presentation of the content that reflects the main theses or results in a very short, concise form. The abstract is very often open to catalogs.
  • Introduction ( Introduction ): A short report of the state of research: The introduction includes a small review with the associated literature search, so to speak. The motivation for the present work is shown: which knowledge gaps exist? Why is it important to fill them? Hypothesis (s) is also formulated.
  • Materials and methods / experimental part ( Materials and Methods / Experimental Section ): Which sources of information, tools and methods were used to process the question? How is the choice of methods justified?
  • Results ( Results ): What is the result of the efforts? Representation of the data obtained, if necessary with statistical evaluations.
  • Discussion ( Discussion ): Interpretation of the results. What other questions result? What do the results for the research area mean? Are the results in contradiction or harmony with other, earlier publications? Since problems often arise during the research work (for example, bad weather, which makes a research expedition difficult and shortened), the discussion describes self-critically whether and with what restrictions the results are valid.
  • Summary ( Summary ): Similar to that Abstract , but rather future -oriented in relation to further questions. Where and how could the knowledge now gained could be used?
  • Thanksgiving ( Acknowledgements ): Thanks to donors, supporters and critics as well as co-workers who gave individual research contributions or help, but did not have the article themselves. Often also as a footnote to the title.
  • Conflicts of interest ( Conflicts of interest ): Here the scientists involved indicate who they were financed and what conflicts of interest could play a role in this work.
  • Literature List ( References ): in which the cited publications are listed.

However, this structure is not rigid. Often the section Materials and methods In the end (even before the “thanks”), since he is only important for a few readers – for example for those who want to criticize or improve the methodology. The list of authors is often a “ranking”; The person who has contributed most to the work is first mentioned (otherwise the alphabetical order is usually preferred). The head of the working group often gets last place; Most of the time, he also fulfills the function of the correspondence author, who provides work journals and raw data for any inquiries.

Publishers or the editors most often reject scientific publications due to defects in the methodological part. However, the reader is mainly interested in the Abstract – to decide whether the rest of the text is worth reading – and the discussion , because this section describes and classifies the results. The structure is also an important support for the author; the chronological order Introduction → Methods → Results → Discussion → Summary reflects the temporal sections of any research activity. The respective phase serves the next as the basis. [thirty first]

Humanities [ Edit | Edit the source text ]

The structure of humanities work is far less determined than that of the scientific. The structure of the text itself usually only follows pragmatic considerations, after all there are no uniform research methods. As a rule, the work follows the principle of factual or problems discussion; Historical work often follows the chronology. Instead of the “References” at the end, footnotes are often used that are attached to the end of the respective page (“footnote apparatus”, which contains both reference information and comments). In contrast to natural science, a general structure beyond the borders of the individual disciplines has not been able to establish itself, but a development can be observed that – based on the model from the natural sciences – a kind of “abstract” as well as A “summary” come to the main text.

There are ethical discussions about authorship (see also multi -authorship) in scientific publications, and the non -correct mention of the authors is considered a misconduct (see fraud and falsification in science). [32] [33] [34]

There have been incorrect car ranks, especially since scientific performance has often been measured as a number of posts published (“Publish or Perish”). There were and there are still institutions in whose publications the institute manager is automatically mentioned as a co -author regardless of his contribution (“honorary authority”). The same conflicts are also available when naming technical employees or donors. The motivation behind unpolated authors is diverse:

  • Thanks for support or for contributions to the discussion
  • Enlargement of the number of one’s own publications, for example to increase the chance of employment with a new employer
  • Larger funds for the institute or the working group through an apparently larger number of publications
  • The naming of an experienced expert as a co -author so that the publication is given greater attention or so that the publisher is more of a manuscript

After working in 1998, 19% of medical articles contained information on the above -mentioned honorary authors, 11% information on ghostwriters and 2% them on both. To do this, review articles were much more frequently plagued by “honorary authors” than research work. [35] In 2002, a similar study on the so-called Cochrane reviews in medicine also promoted references to “honorary authors” in 39% of all work. [36] The fact that reviews are more likely to suffer from “honorary authors” can be said that they are much more cited – because it is often easier to refer to a reactive warden than to use an original work for every detail.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, also known as the “Vancouver Group”) [37] published guidelines (as of December 2019) [38] For authorship in scientific publications, especially:

The naming as an author should only be based on the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception and draft of work; Or for procurement, analysis or interpretation of the data.
  • Draft publication or revisions to improve important intellectual content.
  • Final approval for publication.

Each author must meet the three conditions. […]
The procurement of financial resources, the recording of data [English collection , for example reading measured values ​​and their input in a database] or the mere supervision or supervision of a research group alone do not justify authorship. […]
Each author should take part in the work to a sufficient extent to take responsibility for the corresponding parts of the work to the public.

These requirements for manuscripts are now bindingly challenged by over 6,600 journals (as of 2021) and published and updated by the ICMJE. [39]

Scientific publications are subject to a so -called Peer-Review , in which other scientists check the correctness and relevance of the work to be published. [40] The period between submission and publication of a manuscript may be more than a year. [41] [42] During the Covid 19 pandemic, the time span has decreased significantly again until the publication for Corona-relevant publications (and only these). [43]

In order to prevent false or fake results, the researchers are only allowed to withdraw a publication with a corresponding publication in concrete cases, so that the (negative) “call”, which is acquired with an incorrect work is.

For a few decades, a trend from only one author and towards multiple authorship has been observed, especially in scientific publications. Until the end of the Second World War, it was the rule that a researcher raised his scientific knowledge alone and was the only author. Today this is very rare in the natural sciences: only six out of over seven hundred of the journal in 2008 Nature Up to and including September, scientific work published by individual author publications, and also in other renowned science magazines, the proportion of publications with only one author is negligible. [44] This development clearly shows that scientific research is now largely supported by joint effort and cooperation between often internationally composed teams. However, individual author publications are still common in the humanities and social sciences.

There are special magazines in which – sorted by list of the author and title of publication – only specified when, where and by whom this publication within a given period quoted is generally only taken into account “speaker” magazines. A note in front of the publication in a journal-or a detailed preliminary discussion-in a popular non-scientific medium, for example in the New York Times So it doesn’t count, even though this is sometimes sought so.

By evaluating the “cited by …” statistics, you can get quantitative statements about the so-called impact factor of a specific scientific publication medium.

An investigation published in 2019 gave indications that complicated publications are less often cited (and thus have less “impact”): an economist checked the publications published between 2000 and 2009 in the American Economic Review based on seven characteristics, for example the “Linsear Write “. The characteristic values ​​take into account, for example, the number of words in one sentence and the number of syllables per word. The most difficult to understand 15 percent of the publications were cited significantly less frequently. [45] [forty six]

Studies (as of 2014) about the top 100 of the most cited articles (database: Science Citation Index (SCI)) showed the following details: [47]

  • Number 1 (rank 1) article [48] Had over 300,000 references
  • Only three articles had more than 100,000 references and goods from the field of biotechnology (more precisely: laboratory methods and procedures)
  • All of the 100 articles have been quoted over more than 12,000 times and are “extreme outliers”
  • Only approx. 14,499 items have over 1,000 citations
  • The results and ranking of articles differ from other ranking systems (database) such as B. Google Scholar [49]

Various evaluations of non-content-relieved distortions of the impact have now been carried out by citation analyzes. [50] For example, women in physics do not enjoy a “pioneer advantage” in the publication of completely new knowledge, which has an impact on gender equality in the sciences. [51]

  • Umberto Eco: How to write a scientific thesis . C.F. Müller, Heidelberg 2000.
  • Hans-Hermann Dubben, Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt: Unbalanced reporting in medical science . Institute for General Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-00-014238-X Researchgate.net (PDF; 700 kB).
  1. ↑ Jamie J. Kirkham, Naomi Penfold, Fiona Murphy, Isabelle Boutron, John PA Ioannidis: A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting . 28. April 2020, S. 2020.04.27.063578 , doi: 10.101/2020.04.27.063578 ( biorxiv.org [accessed on October 2, 2021]).
  2. ↑ List of preprint servers: policies and practices across platforms. In: Asapbio. Accessed on October 2, 2021 (American English).
  3. ↑ Michael Huter: Books are not dead, they only smell strange. Börsenblatt, July 23, 2015, accessed on October 1, 2021 .
  4. ↑ Alexander Michael Petersen, Santo Fortunato, RAJ K. Pan, Kimmo Kaki, Orion Penner: Reputation and impact in academic careers . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Band 111 , No. 43 , 28. October 2014, ISSN 0027-8424 , S. 15316–15321 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323111111 , PMID 25288774 ( pnas.org [accessed on October 2, 2021]).
  5. ↑ Research Management Group (RMG): Non-Disclosure Agreements. Stanford Medicine, accessed on October 2, 2021 (Samoanic).
  6. ↑ Paul D. Witman: A Guide to Non-Disclosure Agreements for Researchers: . In: Handbook of Research on Information Security and Assurance . Global, 2009, ISBN 978-1-59904-855-0, S. 347–359 , doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-855-0.ch030 ( Igi-lobal.com [accessed on October 2, 2021]).
  7. ↑ Michael D. Moberly: Chapter 7 – Distinguishing Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets . In: Safeguarding Intangible Assets . Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston 2014, ISBN 978-0-12-800516-3, S. 91–108 , doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800516-3.00007-0 ( sciencedirect.com [accessed on October 2, 2021]).
  8. ↑ ZEW-Saktuelle: Why do companies publish in scientific magazines? – ZEW/ISI workshop for exchange between science, business and politics. Accessed on October 2, 2021 (German).
  9. ↑ Markus ribbons: Scientific publication in journals of vocational training research . 2. Updated edition. Bonn 2019, ISBN 978-3-96208-109-6, S. 5 ff .
  10. ↑ Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: Reports from research – promotion of excellent science and social benefits – new study in science advances. MPG IP, December 11, 2019, accessed on October 1, 2021 .
  11. ↑ Norm data in science. Accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  12. ↑ Altmetric Top 100. In: Altmetric. December 20, 2019, accessed on October 2, 2021 (English).
  13. ↑ The Altmetric Top 100 – 2020. Accessed on October 2, 2021 (English).
  14. ↑ Heather Piwowar, Jason Priem, Vincent Larivière, Juan Pablo Alperin, Lisa Matthias: The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles . In: Peeri . Band 6 , 13. February 2018, ISSN 2167-8359 , S. E4375 , doi: 10.7717/Peerj.4375 .
  15. ↑ Heather Piwowar, Jason Priem, Vincent Larivière, Juan Pablo Alperin, Lisa Matthias: The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles . In: Peeri . Band 6 , 2018, ISSN  2167-8359 , S. E4375 , doi: 10.7717/Peerj.4375 , PMID 29456894 , PMC 5815332 (Free full text).
  16. ↑ The top altmetrics research is impressively Open Access! In: Altmetric. 26. October 2017, accessed on October 2, 2021 (English).
  17. ↑ Altmetric data on journal articles with “altmetrics” in the title or abstract, October 18 2017 . October 18, 2017, Doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5513104.v1 ( Figshare.com [accessed on October 2, 2021]).
  18. ↑ Frontiers: Our impact. Frontiers – Academic Journals and Research Community, accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  19. ↑ Transformative Journals: Frequently Asked Questions | Plan S. Accessed on November 13, 2021 .
  20. ↑ Open access | Royal Society. Accessed on November 13, 2021 (British English).
  21. ↑ Stefano Balietti: Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems . In: The New Republic . 9. August 2016, ISSN  0028-6583 ( Newrepublic.com [accessed on October 2, 2021]).
  22. ↑ Understanding Science: Scrutinizing science: Peer review. In: Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology, Advisory Boards, accessed on October 2, 2021 (English).
  23. ↑ Flaminio Squazzoni, Giangiacomo Bravo, Mike Farjam, Ana Marusic, Bahar Mehmani: Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals . In: Science Advances . Band 7 , No. 2 , S. eabd0299 , doi: 10.1126/Sciaadv.abd0299 , PMID 33523967 , PMC 7787493 (Free full text).
  24. ↑ Fifteen journals to outsource peer-review decisions. Accessed on October 2, 2021 (English).
  25. ↑ International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. American Medical Association, accessed on October 2, 2021 (American English).
  26. ↑ jeffollerton: How many non-peer-reviewed publications should a scientist produce? In: Prof. Jeff Ollerton – consultant ecological scientist and author. 31. August 2016, accessed on October 2, 2021 (English).
  27. ↑ National ISSN center for Germany. Accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  28. ↑ Anton Goldberg: What is an ISBN and do I need one? In: indieeauTor.com. December 29, 2018, accessed on October 2, 2021 (German).
  29. ↑ Deutscher Ärzteverlag GmbH, editorial team Deutsches Ärzteblatt: Scientific publications: How to recognize robbery. December 6, 2019, accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  30. ↑ Alfred Brink: Preparation of scientific work . 2013, doi: 10,1007/978-3-8349-4397-2-2 .
  31. ↑ A. Boland: Doing a systematic review . Sage Publ., 2014
  32. ↑ Deutscher Ärzteverlag GmbH, editorial team Deutsches Ärzteblatt: Publishing scientific publication: lay the contribution of every author. February 25, 2005, accessed on October 1, 2021 .
  33. ↑ Author order. Research & teaching, October 2, 2021, accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  34. ↑ German Research Foundation: Suggestions for ensuring good scientific practice: memorandum: Recommendations of the Commission “Self -Control in Science” = Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice: Memorandum: Recommendations of the Commission on Professional Self Regulation in Science . Supplemented edition = Expanded Edition. Weinheim 2013, ISBN 978-3-527-67918-8.
  35. ↑ A. Flanagin, L. A. Carey, P. B. Fontanarosa, S. G. Phillips, B. P. Pace, G. D. Lundberg et al.: Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals . In: PEOPLE , 280(3), 1998, S. 222–224. Two: 10.1001/Jama.280.3.222 .
  36. ↑ G. Mowatt, L. Shirran, J. Grimehaw, D. Renie, A. Flanagin, V. Yank It Alt .: Prevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane Reviews . In: PEOPLE , 287(21), 2002, S. 2769–2771. Two: 10.1001/Jama.287.21.2769 .
  37. ↑ ICMJE | About ICMJE | ICMJE Membership. Accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  38. ↑ ICMJE | Recommendations. Accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  39. ↑ ICMJE | Journals stating that they follow the ICMJE Recommendations. Accessed on October 2, 2021 .
  40. ↑ Jacalyn Kelly, Tara Sadegheeh, Khosrow Adeli: Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide . In: Use of the use . Band 25 , No. 3 , October 2014, ISSN 1650-3414 , S. 227–243 , PMID 27683470 , PMC 4975196 (Free full text).
  41. ↑ Bo-Christer Björk: Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals . In: Online Information Review . Band 45 , No. 2 , 1. January 2018, ISSN 1468-4527 , S. 270–277 , doi: 10.1108 / RO-04-2018-0151 .
  42. ↑ FWF The Science Fund House of Research Sensengasse 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria E.-Mail: OfficeFWF AC at Telephone: +43-1-505 67 40: “It is difficult to explain why it takes so long”. In: The Magazine of the Austrian Science Fund FWF. December 10, 2020, accessed on October 2, 2021 (German).
  43. ↑ Serge P. J. M. Horbach: Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 . In: Quantitative Science Studies . Band first , No. 3 , 1. August 2020, ISSN  2641-3337 , S. 1056–1067 , doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00076 .
  44. ↑ John Whitfield: Collaboration: Group theory . In: Nature . Band 455 , No. 7214 , 1. OCTOBER 2008, ISSN 1476-4687 , S. 720–723 , doi: 10.1038/455720A .
  45. ↑ Success in research: Language style and “impact” are related. Retrieved on October 28, 2019 .
  46. ↑ Bryan C. McCannon: Readability and research impact . In: Economics Letters . Band 180 , 2019, S. 76–79 , doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2019.02.017 .
  47. ↑ Richard van Noorden, Brendan Maher, Regina Nuzzo: The top 100 papers . In: Nature News . Band 514 , No. 7524 , 30. October 2014, S. 550 , doi: 10.1038/514550a ( Nature.com [accessed November 13, 2021]).
  48. ↑ Oliverh. Lowry, Niraj. Rosebrough, A. Lewis Farr, Rosej. Randall: PROTEIN MEASUREMENT WITH THE FOLIN PHENOL REAGENT . In: Journal of Biological Chemistry . Band 193 , No. first , November 1951, S. 265–275 , doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258 (19) 52451-6 ( Elsevier.com [accessed November 13, 2021]).
  49. ↑ English – Google Scholar Metrics. Accessed on November 13, 2021 .
  50. ↑ Dashun Wang: The science of science . Cambridge, United Kingdom 2021, ISBN 978-1-108-61083-4.
  51. ↑ Hyunsik Kong, Samuel Martin-Gutierrez, Fariba Karimi: Influence of the first-mover advantage on the gender disparities in physics citations . In: Communications Physics . Band 5 , No. first , 13. OCTOBER 2022, ISSN 2399-3650 , S. 243 , doi: 10.1038/s42005-022-00997-x ( Nature.com [accessed on October 27, 2022]).