Background: There is an attrition of women physicians in academic medicine hierarchy. Scholarship in medical journals plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion, and authoritative recognition, and women physician authors are underrepresented in original research articles. Objectives: We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly underrepresented in commentary articles within high impact journals. Design/Setting/Participants: In this observational study, we abstracted gender, degree, and authorship position from January 1, 2014 to October 16, 2018 among commentary articles in three high impact journals: 1) JAMA Viewpoint; 2) NEJM Perspective; and 3) Annals of Internal Medicine Ideas and Opinions. Primary Outcome Measure: To compare the percentages of authors by gender, degree, authorship position, and journal in commentary articles, and assess for trends over a five-year period. Secondary Outcome Measures: To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine. To examine the gender concordance between last and first authors. Results: Of the 2,087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared to 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1,477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared to only 12% of women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time, however the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women authors in the first and last position were concordant in 9% of articles, men authors in the first and last author position were concordant in 55% of articles. Conclusions: Women physician authors remain underrepresented in commentary articles compared to men physician authors in the first and last author position. The proportion of women first authors was lowest with a women last author.

Research integrity in Instructions for Authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE Recommendations: a descriptive literature study

Description of the data and file structure

The dataset (csv) includes nine files below.

Data of Nos. 1) to 3) files were used in Table 1 (Background information for the evaluated medical journals) in the article.

1) Background_information_ICMJE: Background information of ICMJE member journals

2) Background_information_Eng: Background information of JAMS English-language journals

3) Background_information_Ja: Background information of JAMS Japanese-language journals

Data of Nos. 4) to 6) files were used in Table 2 (Evaluation of research integrity topics, including those described in the ICMJE Recommendations) in the article.

4) Integirty_topics_ICMJE: Integrity topics of ICMJE member journals

5) Integirty_topics_Eng: Integrity topics of JAMS English-language journals

6) Integrity_topics_Ja: Integrity topics of JAMS Japa...

Frequency of the first author being a woman when the last author is a woman.

Background This bibliometric analysis examines the top 50 most-cited articles on COVID-19 complications, offering insights into the multifaceted impact of the virus. Since its emergence in Wuhan in December 2019, COVID-19 has evolved into a global health crisis, with over 770 million confirmed cases and 6.9 million deaths as of September 2023. Initially recognized as a respiratory illness causing pneumonia and ARDS, its diverse complications extend to cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, renal, hematological, neurological, endocrinological, ophthalmological, hepatobiliary, and dermatological systems. Methods Identifying the top 50 articles from a pool of 5940 in Scopus, the analysis spans November 2019 to July 2021, employing terms related to COVID-19 and complications. Rigorous review criteria excluded non-relevant studies, basic science research, and animal models. The authors independently reviewed articles, considering factors like title, citations, publication year, journal, impact fa..., A bibliometric analysis of the most cited articles about COVID-19 complications was conducted in July 2021 using all journals indexed in Elsevier’s Scopus and Thomas Reuter’s Web of Science from November 1, 2019 to July 1, 2021. All journals were selected for inclusion regardless of country of origin, language, medical speciality, or electronic availability of articles or abstracts. The terms were combined as follows: (“COVID-19†OR “COVID19†OR “SARS-COV-2†OR “SARSCOV2†OR “SARS 2†OR “Novel coronavirus†OR “2019-nCov†OR “Coronavirus†) AND (“Complication†OR “Long Term Complication†OR “Post-Intensive Care Syndrome†OR “Venous Thromboembolism†OR “Acute Kidney Injury†OR “Acute Liver Injury†OR “Post COVID-19 Syndrome†OR “Acute Cardiac Injury†OR “Cardiac Arrest†OR “Stroke†OR “Embolism†OR “Septic Shock†OR “Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation†OR “Secondary Infection†OR “Blood Clots† OR “Cytokine Release Syndrome†OR “Paediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome†OR “Vaccine..., , # Data of top 50 most cited articles about COVID-19 and the complications of COVID-19

This dataset contains information about the top 50 most cited articles about COVID-19 and the complications of COVID-19. We have looked into a variety of research and clinical factors for the analysis.

Description of the data and file structure

The data sheet offers a comprehensive analysis of the selected articles. It delves into specifics such as the publication year of the top 50 articles, the journals responsible for publishing them, and the geographical region with the highest number of citations in this elite list. Moreover, the sheet sheds light on the key players involved, including authors and their affiliated departments, in crafting the top 50 most cited articles.

Beyond these fundamental aspects, the data sheet goes on to provide intricate details related to the study types and topics prevalent in the top 50 articles. To enrich the analysis, it incorporates clinical data, capturing...

This csv file contains a descriptive dataset of 617 scholarly journals that make use of a form of Open Peer Review (OPR) based on Open Reports and/or Open Reviewer Identities. The data file contains the following fields:

Journal Title

Year of First Identified OPR Occurrence (2001-2019)

High Level Discipline of the Journal (Humanities, Medical and Health Sciences, Multidisciplinary, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology)

Journal URL

Journal Publisher

Publisher Country

Use of Open Reports (Decided by Author, Decided by Editor, Mandated by Journal, None)

Use of Open Reviewer Identities (Decided by Reviewer, Mandated, None)

Notes that provide additional information about the journal

Raw data of data sharing policies in over 300 journals, supporting the article currently under review: "Reproducible and reusable research: Are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?".

Raw data and analysis of data sharing policies of 318 biomedical journals. The study authors manually reviewed the author instructions and editorial policies to analyze the each journal's data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal.

We evaluated journals included in Thomson Reuter’s InCites 2013 Journal Citations Reports (JCR) classified within the following World of Science schema categories: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Cell Biology, Crystallography, Developmental Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Immunology, Medical Informatics, Microbiology, Microscopy, Multidisciplinary Sciences, and Neurosciences. These categories were selected to capture the journals publishing the majority of peer-reviewed biomedical research. The original data pull included 1,166 journals, collectively publishing 213,449 articles. We filtered this list to the journals in the top quartiles by impact factor (IF) or number of articles published 2013. Additionally, the list was manually reviewed to exclude short report and review journals, and titles determined to be outside the fields of basic medical science or clinical research. The final study set included 318 journals, which published 130,330 articles in 2013. The study set represented 27% of the original Journal Citation Report list and 61% of the original citable articles. Prior to our analysis, the 2014 Journal Citations Reports was released. After our initial analyses and first preprint submission, the 2015 Journal Citations Reports was released. While we did not use the 2014 or 2015 data to amend the journals in the study set, we did employ data from all three reports in our analyses. In our data pull from JCR, we included the journal title, International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), the total citable items for 2013, 2014, and 2015, the total citations to the journal for 2013/14/15, the impact factors for 2013/14/15, and the publisher.

Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences Acceptance Rate - ResearchHelpDesk - Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences (JMMS, J Mind Med Sci) pays special attention to papers related to mental and medical topics, focusing primarily on interdisciplinary and integrative perspectives. It is an online and open-access journal, no charges being received for submission, review, and publication of articles. The journal adheres to the philosophy that high quality and original ideas and information should be freely shared within and amongst the scientific community, with the stipulation that the authors be acknowledged for their knowledge and contribution. J Mind Med Sci. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License. The journal is conducted by international norms of academic publishing, being listed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), adhere to the most important and comprehensive ethical guidelines of COPE, it is a member of CrossRef and indexed by several International Databases. Authors are encouraged to supply the names of two potential referees, and/or of referees that they do not wish to review their paper. The decision regarding the selection process of the reviewers belongs to Editor(s). Our referees have the opportunity to be recognized as reviewers for their contributions, due to the fact that the Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences is a member of Publons (part of Clarivate Analytics). Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences is currently indexed in the following international databases: Web of Science WorldWideScience World Health Organization (Hinari/ Health Inter-Network Access to Research Initiative) Microsoft Academic Search EBSCO DOAJ Index Copernicus Cabell`s Whitelist Ulrich's Periodicals Directory SHERPA/ RoMEO OAJI J-Gate DRJI SCIPIO OpenAIRE (Horizon 2020) ClavisBCT Gale/ Cengage Learning Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Google Scholar WorldCat J Mind Med Sci. can also be accessed via prestigious medical universities, like: Harvard Library Yale University Library Oxford University Libraries Stanford University Libraries Boston University Libraries The British Library COPAC (Cambridge, Glasgow, Imperial College, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, York, Southampton Universities) Berlin Social Science Center The Saskatoon Public Library BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine) Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Social Services Knowledge Scotland elibrary, etc.

Abstract Credit and responsibility for scientific authorship are issues discussed in Brazilian and international literature. In 1978, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors was created, which established general rules for determining authorship in scientific publications. By discussing ethical aspects of scientific production, this article seeks to present these guidelines, as well as the percentage of national psychology journals that adopt them. From the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel system, Brazilian psychology publications with Qualis A1, A2, B1 and B2 scores were evaluated. The editorial policies of 292 journals were found to be in line with the committee’s authorship criteria, suggesting that national psychology publications show quality and credibility for complying with rules of responsibility for authorship.

Database of journal information that provides tools to search, sort, filter, compare, and evaluate scholarly journals. In addition to searching by journal name, category or publisher, authors can use title and abstract of paper to discover journals that have already published articles on similar topics. Data sources include major industry data sets, public resources, information submitted directly by journal editors, and real-life publishing experiences submitted by authors.

To recommend strategies to improve discoverability of consumer health informatics (CHI) literature, we aimed to characterize controlled vocabulary and author terminology applied to a subset of CHI literature on wearable technologies. A descriptive analysis of articles (N=2,522) from 2019 identified 308 (12.2%) CHI-related articles for which the citations with PubMed identifiers for the included and excluded studies are provided. The 308 articles were published in 181 journals which we classified by type of journal—health, informatics, technology and other—as shown in the third file. We provide an aggregated file of the author-assigned keywords as they appeared in the PubMed records of the included studies along with our decision about whether they represented consumer engagement. We also included an aggregated file of the Medical Subject Headings assigned to the included studies. The top 100 terms and their frequency scores for the title and abstracts are also included. We did not include any of the terminology from CINAHL, and Engineering Databases (Compendex and Inspec together) due to copyright concerns.

We provide an academic graph based on a snapshot of the Microsoft Academic Graph from 26.05.2021. The Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) is a large-scale dataset containing information about scientific publication records, their citation relations, as well as authors, affiliations, journals, conferences and fields of study. We acknowledge the Microsoft Academic Graph using the URI https://aka.ms/msracad. For more information regarding schema and the entities present in the original dataset please refer to: MAG schema.

MAG for Heterogeneous Graph Learning We use a recent version of MAG from May 2021 and extract all relevant entities to build a graph that can be directly used for heterogeneous graph learning (node classification, link prediction, etc.). The graph contains all English papers, published after 1900, that have been cited at least 5 times per year since the time of publishing. For fairness, we set a constant citation bound of 100 for papers published before 2000. We further include two smaller subgraphs, one containing computer science papers and one containing medicine papers.

Nodes and features We define the following nodes:

paper with mag_id, graph_id, normalized title, year of publication, citations and a 128-dimension title embedding built using word2vec No. of papers: 5,091,690 (all), 1,014,769 (medicine), 367,576 (computer science);

author with mag_id, graph_id, normalized name, citations No. of authors: 6,363,201 (all), 1,797,980 (medicine), 557,078 (computer science);

field with mag_id, graph_id, level, citations denoting the hierarchical level of the field where 0 is the highest-level (e.g. computer science) No. of fields: 199,457 (all), 83,970 (medicine), 45,454 (computer science);

affiliation with mag_id, graph_id, citations No. of affiliations: 19,421 (all), 12,103 (medicine), 10,139 (computer science);

venue with mag_id, graph_id, citations, type denoting whether conference or journal No. of venues: 24,608 (all), 8,514 (medicine), 9,893 (computer science).

Edges We define the following edges:

author is_affiliated_with affiliation No. of author-affiliation edges: 8,292,253 (all), 2,265,728 (medicine), 665,931 (computer science);

author is_first/last/other paper No. of author-paper edges: 24,907,473 (all), 5,081,752 (medicine), 1,269,485 (computer science);

paper has_citation_to paper No. of author-affiliation edges: 142,684,074 (all), 16,808,837 (medicine), 4,152,804 (computer science);

paper conference/journal_published_at venue No. of author-affiliation edges: 5,091,690 (all), 1,014,769 (medicine), 367,576 (computer science);

paper has_field_L0/L1/L2/L3/L4 field No. of author-affiliation edges: 47,531,366 (all), 9,403,708 (medicine), 3,341,395 (computer science);

field is_in field No. of author-affiliation edges: 339,036 (all), 138,304 (medicine), 83,245 (computer science);

We further include a reverse edge for each edge type defined above that is denoted with the prefix rev_ and can be removed based on the downstream task.

Data structure The nodes and their respective features are provided as separate .tsv files where each feature represents a column. The edges are provided as a pickled python dictionary with schema:

{target_type: {source_type: {edge_type: {target_id: {source_id: {time } } } } } }

We provide three compressed ZIP archives, one for each subgraph (all, medicine, computer science), however we split the file for the complete graph into 500mb chunks. Each archive contains the separate node features and edge dictionary.

Unlock valuable biomedical knowledge with our comprehensive PubMed Dataset, designed for researchers, analysts, and healthcare professionals to track medical advancements, explore drug discoveries, and analyze scientific literature.

Dataset Features

Scientific Articles & Abstracts: Access structured data from PubMed, including article titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and journal sources. Medical Research & Clinical Studies: Retrieve data on clinical trials, drug research, disease studies, and healthcare innovations. Keywords & MeSH Terms: Extract key medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords to categorize and analyze research topics. Publication & Citation Data: Track citation counts, journal impact factors, and author affiliations for academic and industry research.

Customizable Subsets for Specific Needs Our PubMed Dataset is fully customizable, allowing you to filter data based on publication date, research category, keywords, or specific journals. Whether you need broad coverage for medical research or focused data for pharmaceutical analysis, we tailor the dataset to your needs.

Popular Use Cases

Pharmaceutical Research & Drug Development: Analyze clinical trial data, drug efficacy studies, and emerging treatments. Medical & Healthcare Intelligence: Track disease outbreaks, healthcare trends, and advancements in medical technology. AI & Machine Learning Applications: Use structured biomedical data to train AI models for predictive analytics, medical diagnosis, and literature summarization. Academic & Scientific Research: Access a vast collection of peer-reviewed studies for literature reviews, meta-analyses, and academic publishing. Regulatory & Compliance Monitoring: Stay updated on medical regulations, FDA approvals, and healthcare policy changes.

Whether you're conducting medical research, analyzing healthcare trends, or developing AI-driven solutions, our PubMed Dataset provides the structured data you need. Get started today and customize your dataset to fit your research objectives.

This is the raw data for the manuscript "Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis" by Maggio, Costello, Norton, Driessen, and Artino. The data contain the citations, including the DOI, PMID, and all author locations for all 963 knowledge syntheses included in the study. This study has also been published in a peer reviewed journal:

Maggio LA, Costello JA, Norton C, Driessen EW, Artino Jr AR. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2020 Oct 22:1-9.

The abstract for the study is as follows:

Purpose This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner.

Method In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata was extracted from Pubmed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall.

Results The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of total articles published (n=30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD=35.85, Median=33), and there was an overall 2,620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD=67.2, Median=41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n=189; 19%). Twenty-one knowledge synthesis types were identified; the most prevalent types were systematic reviews (n=341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n=88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD=107.12, Median=19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD=37.59, Median=6).

Conclusions There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education’s evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed.

Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences, a publication of Yenepoya (Deemed to be) University, is peer-reviewed, open-access online and print International journal published biannually. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive the final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal does not charge for submission, processing or publication of manuscripts and even for color reproduction of photographs. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences (AMHS, Print ISSN 2321-4848) is the official peer reviewed open access international journal of Yenepoya (Deemed to be) University. AMHS is dedicated to the publication of scholarly and outstanding peer-reviewed articles to foster education, research, and professionalism in the fields of Internal Medicine, Clinical and Allied Health Sciences including Nursing, Physiotherapy, Dental and Medical Education. AMHS's philosophy is to provide online free and open access since research networks in the global research community should be transparent without borders, barriers or discrimination. Its main objective is to reflect multidisciplinary scientific research and collaboration among academicians, educators, clinicians, and researchers from India as well as the international medical community. To ensure international relevance, to maintain high quality, and guarantee a rigorous peer-review process, AMHS has Editorial Board members who are experts in their respective specialties from all around the world. Editorial content includes Invited Editorial, Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case reports & Short communications, Special articles, Medical Education Articles, Medical History Articles, Teaching Images and Letters to the Editor. AMHS is published biannually in June and December. Abstracting and Indexing Information The journal is registered with the following abstracting partners: Baidu Scholar, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), EBSCO Publishing's Electronic Databases, Ex Libris – Primo Central, Google Scholar, Hinari, Infotrieve, National Science Library, ProQuest, TdNet, Wanfang Data

Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences FAQ - ResearchHelpDesk - Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences, a publication of Yenepoya (Deemed to be) University, is peer-reviewed, open-access online and print International journal published biannually. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive the final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal does not charge for submission, processing or publication of manuscripts and even for color reproduction of photographs. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences (AMHS, Print ISSN 2321-4848) is the official peer reviewed open access international journal of Yenepoya (Deemed to be) University. AMHS is dedicated to the publication of scholarly and outstanding peer-reviewed articles to foster education, research, and professionalism in the fields of Internal Medicine, Clinical and Allied Health Sciences including Nursing, Physiotherapy, Dental and Medical Education. AMHS's philosophy is to provide online free and open access since research networks in the global research community should be transparent without borders, barriers or discrimination. Its main objective is to reflect multidisciplinary scientific research and collaboration among academicians, educators, clinicians, and researchers from India as well as the international medical community. To ensure international relevance, to maintain high quality, and guarantee a rigorous peer-review process, AMHS has Editorial Board members who are experts in their respective specialties from all around the world. Editorial content includes Invited Editorial, Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case reports & Short communications, Special articles, Medical Education Articles, Medical History Articles, Teaching Images and Letters to the Editor. AMHS is published biannually in June and December. Abstracting and Indexing Information The journal is registered with the following abstracting partners: Baidu Scholar, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), EBSCO Publishing's Electronic Databases, Ex Libris – Primo Central, Google Scholar, Hinari, Infotrieve, National Science Library, ProQuest, TdNet, Wanfang Data

The Journal of Community Health Management - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Community Health Management (JCHM) is open access, double-blind peer-review journal publishing quarterly since 2014. JCHM is proclaimed by Innovative Education and Scientific Research Foundation, print and published by Innovative Publication. It has an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN 2394-272X, e ISSN 2394-2738). JCHM permits authors to self-archive final approval of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional/subject-based repository. Aim and Scope JCHM is focusing on Community Health which is the branch of the Public Health, it's making people aware and describing their role as determinants of their own and other people’s health in contrast to environmental health which focal point on the physical environment and its impact on people health. It concentrates on the maintenance, protection, and improvement of the health status of population groups and communities. The scope is, therefore, huge covering almost all streams of Community Health Management starting from original research articles, review articles, short communications, and clinical cases as well as studies covering clinical, experimental and applied topics on Community health Management on above subjective areas. The scope of the journal isn't restricted to those subjects however it's the broader coverage of all the newest updates and specialties. Indexing The Journal is an index with Index Copernicus (Poland), Google Scholar, J-gate, EBSCO (USA) database, Academia.edu, CrossRef, ROAD, InfoBase Index, GENAMIC, etc. Keywords Acute Care, Bio-statics, Community Health, Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Health Management, Medicine and Allied branches of Medical Sciences including Health Statistics, Nutrition, Preventive Medicine, Primary Prevention, Primary Health Care, Secondary Prevention, Secondary Healthcare, Tertiary Healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: Trial registration can increase scientific transparency, but its implementation in specialty fields such as urology is unclear. We aimed to assess the endorsement of trial registration in the author instructions of urology-related journals and to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field were effectively registered. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of published trials. SETTING: We first assessed the author instructions of urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). Second, we divided the results into two groups of five journals each, all with high impact factors either requiring or not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. We then performed a MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011) and searched the clinical trials meta-search interface of the World Health Organization (ICTRP) for RCTs without information about registration (01–03/2011). Two authors independently assessed information regarding editorial advice about trial registration and identified the RCTs. RESULTS: Of 55 journals included, 26 (47.3%) contained some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with high impact factors were more likely to mention trial registration directly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration directly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: A statement of trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs. Journals with high impact factors were more likely to mention trial registration. We suggest, though, that ensuring trial registration is not the responsibility only of the editors. Medical scientists should realize that trial registration is necessary to contribute to transparency in research.

Archive and access films from the field of Ophthalmology for free on highly secure servers for permanent access and citeability. A citeable identification number (specific addressing using DOI), allows for citation of individual films in journal publications. Films may be commented by the author either in speech, or in text. Key wording provided by the authors at the time of submission, make each film recognizable to internet search machines.

Dataset 1. Research data of 181 retracted articles by Taiwanese authors in biomedical journals.

Research on the diverse benefits of nature to people is characterised by a broad range of disciplines involved, encompassing a variety of approaches, methods and terminologies. While a diversity of approaches is valuable, it can lead to difficulties in integrating and sharing findings and could form a barrier to effective knowledge exchange, hindering the development and applications of research outputs. As a starting point for this scoping review, we chose four broad research areas (medicine, psychology, education and environment), selected to represent disparate approaches to research on the benefits of nature to people, within and across which to explore overlap in citations and terms used to describe nature. We conducted expert consultation and a snowball-based approach to source publications, resulting in a sample of 210 papers, spanning multiple disciplines within each of our four research areas. For each paper, we recorded the discipline of the journal in which it was published (publishing discipline), the discipline of its first author (first-author discipline), the number of times journals of each discipline were cited in its bibliography (cited discipline) and the term(s) used in the paper’s title or abstract to describe the aspect of nature being explored (nature term). Cited disciplines were significantly different between publishing and first-author disciplines, with papers from psychology, education and public health citing distinct communities of papers. However, disciplines generally cited a wide range of other disciplines, with articles in medical journals being particularly broadly cited. Nature terms were significantly different between publishing and first-author disciplines, with some degree of consistency within disciplines (e.g., education papers consistently used a narrow range of nature terms, such as ‘outdoor learning’). However, there was a notably high range of nature terms used within psychology and public health papers, indicating that research from these disciplines may be particularly prone to being overlooked by search strings. The wide range of disciplines cited is encouraging, since this indicates that diverse research areas are generally aware of each other’s work. However, to avoid unnecessary expansion of nature terms and support searchability, we propose four key terms for nature: (‘outdoor learning’ OR ‘outdoor education’), (‘nature’ OR ‘natural’), (‘green space’ OR ‘greenspace’) and (‘biodiversity’ or ‘trees’), which could be used across disciplines. We particularly propose that at least one of these be included in every paper, and all four should be included in review search strings. This is likely to result in better understanding of the valuable, disparate contributions made by different disciplines to this expanding and important topic.