Identifiers
Linking ISSN (ISSN-L): 2771-5965
URL https://oaepublish.com/mrr
Google https://www.google.com/search?q=ISSN+%222771-5965%22
Bing https://www.bing.com/search?q=ISSN+%222771-5965%22
Yahoo https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ISSN%20%222771-5965%22
Pubmed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%222771-5965%22%5BJournal%5D&sort=
Library of Congress https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=STNO&searchArg=2771-5965&searchType=1&limitTo=none&fromYear=&toYear=&limitTo=LOCA%3Dall&limitTo=PLAC%3Dall&limitTo=TYPE%3Dall&limitTo=LANG%3Dall&recCount=25
Resource information
Archival status.
Title proper: Microbiome research reports.
Other variant title: MRR
Country: United States
Medium: Online
Portico, Portico, https://www.portico.org , Online access with authorization, 2022/2023
| Status | Publisher | Keeper | From | To | Updated | Extent of archive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preserved | OAE Publishing Inc. | Portico | 2022 | 2023 | 28/04/2024 | |
Record information
Last modification date: 27/12/2023
Type of record: Confirmed
ISSN Center responsible of the record: ISSN National Centre for the USA For all potential issues concerning this bibliographic record (missing or wrong data etc.), please contact the ISSN National Centre mentioned above by clicking on the link.
downloads requested
Discover all the features of the complete ISSN records
Display mode x.
Labelled view
MARC21 view
UNIMARC view
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Microbiome Research Reports
Public Views
Papers by Microbiome Research Reports
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- Academia.edu Journals
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
- All subject areas
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences
- Arts and Humanities
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Chemical Engineering
- Computer Science
- Decision Sciences
- Earth and Planetary Sciences
- Economics, Econometrics and Finance
- Engineering
- Environmental Science
- Health Professions
- Immunology and Microbiology
- Materials Science
- Mathematics
- Multidisciplinary
- Neuroscience
- Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
- Physics and Astronomy
- Social Sciences
- All subject categories
- Acoustics and Ultrasonics
- Advanced and Specialized Nursing
- Aerospace Engineering
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Agronomy and Crop Science
- Algebra and Number Theory
- Analytical Chemistry
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
- Animal Science and Zoology
- Anthropology
- Applied Mathematics
- Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
- Applied Psychology
- Aquatic Science
- Archeology (arts and humanities)
- Architecture
- Artificial Intelligence
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Assessment and Diagnosis
- Astronomy and Astrophysics
- Atmospheric Science
- Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
- Automotive Engineering
- Behavioral Neuroscience
- Biochemistry
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)
- Biochemistry (medical)
- Bioengineering
- Biological Psychiatry
- Biomaterials
- Biomedical Engineering
- Biotechnology
- Building and Construction
- Business and International Management
- Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
- Cancer Research
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Care Planning
- Cell Biology
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
- Ceramics and Composites
- Chemical Engineering (miscellaneous)
- Chemical Health and Safety
- Chemistry (miscellaneous)
- Chiropractics
- Civil and Structural Engineering
- Clinical Biochemistry
- Clinical Psychology
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Colloid and Surface Chemistry
- Communication
- Community and Home Care
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- Complementary and Manual Therapy
- Computational Mathematics
- Computational Mechanics
- Computational Theory and Mathematics
- Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design
- Computer Networks and Communications
- Computer Science Applications
- Computer Science (miscellaneous)
- Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Computers in Earth Sciences
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Conservation
- Control and Optimization
- Control and Systems Engineering
- Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
- Critical Care Nursing
- Cultural Studies
- Decision Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Dental Assisting
- Dental Hygiene
- Dentistry (miscellaneous)
- Dermatology
- Development
- Developmental and Educational Psychology
- Developmental Biology
- Developmental Neuroscience
- Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics
- Drug Discovery
- Drug Guides
- Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Earth-Surface Processes
- Ecological Modeling
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Economic Geology
- Economics and Econometrics
- Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
- Electrical and Electronic Engineering
- Electrochemistry
- Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Medicine
- Emergency Nursing
- Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
- Endocrinology
- Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
- Energy Engineering and Power Technology
- Energy (miscellaneous)
- Engineering (miscellaneous)
- Environmental Chemistry
- Environmental Engineering
- Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
- Epidemiology
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Family Practice
- Filtration and Separation
- Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes
- Food Animals
- Food Science
- Fuel Technology
- Fundamentals and Skills
- Gastroenterology
- Gender Studies
- Genetics (clinical)
- Geochemistry and Petrology
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Geometry and Topology
- Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Gerontology
- Global and Planetary Change
- Hardware and Architecture
- Health Informatics
- Health Information Management
- Health Policy
- Health Professions (miscellaneous)
- Health (social science)
- Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
- History and Philosophy of Science
- Horticulture
- Human Factors and Ergonomics
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Immunology and Allergy
- Immunology and Microbiology (miscellaneous)
- Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
- Industrial Relations
- Infectious Diseases
- Information Systems
- Information Systems and Management
- Inorganic Chemistry
- Insect Science
- Instrumentation
- Internal Medicine
- Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects
- Leadership and Management
- Library and Information Sciences
- Life-span and Life-course Studies
- Linguistics and Language
- Literature and Literary Theory
- LPN and LVN
- Management Information Systems
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Management of Technology and Innovation
- Management Science and Operations Research
- Materials Chemistry
- Materials Science (miscellaneous)
- Maternity and Midwifery
- Mathematical Physics
- Mathematics (miscellaneous)
- Mechanical Engineering
- Mechanics of Materials
- Media Technology
- Medical and Surgical Nursing
- Medical Assisting and Transcription
- Medical Laboratory Technology
- Medical Terminology
- Medicine (miscellaneous)
- Metals and Alloys
- Microbiology
- Microbiology (medical)
- Modeling and Simulation
- Molecular Biology
- Molecular Medicine
- Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
- Nature and Landscape Conservation
- Neurology (clinical)
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Neuroscience (miscellaneous)
- Nuclear and High Energy Physics
- Nuclear Energy and Engineering
- Numerical Analysis
- Nurse Assisting
- Nursing (miscellaneous)
- Nutrition and Dietetics
- Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Occupational Therapy
- Ocean Engineering
- Oceanography
- Oncology (nursing)
- Ophthalmology
- Oral Surgery
- Organic Chemistry
- Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
- Orthodontics
- Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
- Otorhinolaryngology
- Paleontology
- Parasitology
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine
- Pathophysiology
- Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
- Periodontics
- Pharmaceutical Science
- Pharmacology
- Pharmacology (medical)
- Pharmacology (nursing)
- Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
- Physical and Theoretical Chemistry
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
- Physics and Astronomy (miscellaneous)
- Physiology (medical)
- Plant Science
- Political Science and International Relations
- Polymers and Plastics
- Process Chemistry and Technology
- Psychiatry and Mental Health
- Psychology (miscellaneous)
- Public Administration
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
- Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
- Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
- Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
- Rehabilitation
- Religious Studies
- Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
- Reproductive Medicine
- Research and Theory
- Respiratory Care
- Review and Exam Preparation
- Reviews and References (medical)
- Rheumatology
- Safety Research
- Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
- Sensory Systems
- Signal Processing
- Small Animals
- Social Psychology
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Social Work
- Sociology and Political Science
- Soil Science
- Space and Planetary Science
- Spectroscopy
- Speech and Hearing
- Sports Science
- Statistical and Nonlinear Physics
- Statistics and Probability
- Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
- Strategy and Management
- Stratigraphy
- Structural Biology
- Surfaces and Interfaces
- Surfaces, Coatings and Films
- Theoretical Computer Science
- Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management
- Transplantation
- Transportation
- Urban Studies
- Veterinary (miscellaneous)
- Visual Arts and Performing Arts
- Waste Management and Disposal
- Water Science and Technology
- All regions / countries
- Asiatic Region
- Eastern Europe
- Latin America
- Middle East
- Northern America
- Pacific Region
- Western Europe
- ARAB COUNTRIES
- IBEROAMERICA
- NORDIC COUNTRIES
- Afghanistan
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Brunei Darussalam
- Czech Republic
- Dominican Republic
- Netherlands
- New Caledonia
- New Zealand
- Papua New Guinea
- Philippines
- Puerto Rico
- Russian Federation
- Saudi Arabia
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Switzerland
- Syrian Arab Republic
- Trinidad and Tobago
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Vatican City State
- Book Series
- Conferences and Proceedings
- Trade Journals
- Citable Docs. (3years)
- Total Cites (3years)
| Title | Type | --> | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | journal | 9.639 Q1 | 372 | 173 | 503 | 9764 | 12098 | 361 | 26.41 | 56.44 | 34.39 | ||
| 2 | journal | 7.982 Q1 | 138 | 257 | 627 | 13099 | 9427 | 468 | 12.68 | 50.97 | 39.74 | ||
| 3 | journal | 7.760 Q1 | 241 | 207 | 616 | 11553 | 8661 | 459 | 12.71 | 55.81 | 42.61 | ||
| 4 | journal | 5.392 Q1 | 42 | 194 | 397 | 4066 | 3371 | 164 | 8.42 | 20.96 | 49.22 | ||
| 5 | journal | 4.082 Q1 | 213 | 33 | 110 | 4145 | 1137 | 107 | 8.50 | 125.61 | 47.50 | ||
| 6 | journal | 3.802 Q1 | 143 | 266 | 622 | 19900 | 8873 | 607 | 13.17 | 74.81 | 44.00 | ||
| 7 | journal | 3.692 Q1 | 230 | 226 | 783 | 16228 | 9197 | 777 | 11.23 | 71.81 | 38.97 | ||
| 8 | journal | 3.453 Q1 | 266 | 256 | 921 | 18891 | 9993 | 916 | 10.47 | 73.79 | 39.41 | ||
| 9 | journal | 3.269 Q1 | 16 | 78 | 52 | 5281 | 936 | 41 | 18.00 | 67.71 | 38.97 | ||
| 10 | journal | 3.264 Q1 | 277 | 26 | 85 | 5260 | 859 | 83 | 7.81 | 202.31 | 34.96 | ||
| 11 | journal | 3.089 Q1 | 250 | 74 | 169 | 12973 | 1935 | 166 | 10.86 | 175.31 | 44.19 | ||
| 12 | journal | 3.075 Q1 | 110 | 307 | 671 | 26295 | 8601 | 660 | 12.33 | 85.65 | 44.26 | ||
| 13 | journal | 2.939 Q1 | 231 | 171 | 386 | 10739 | 3856 | 376 | 9.15 | 62.80 | 39.38 | ||
| 14 | journal | 2.473 Q1 | 41 | 8 | 29 | 1467 | 212 | 29 | 6.17 | 183.38 | 33.96 | ||
| 15 | journal | 2.316 Q1 | 94 | 248 | 807 | 10789 | 7054 | 668 | 7.83 | 43.50 | 43.75 | ||
| 16 | journal | 2.287 Q1 | 47 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 200 | 38 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 17 | journal | 2.223 Q1 | 246 | 648 | 2162 | 44202 | 12150 | 2144 | 5.44 | 68.21 | 43.73 | ||
| 18 | journal | 2.028 Q1 | 168 | 698 | 2309 | 39533 | 12160 | 2257 | 4.78 | 56.64 | 44.56 | ||
| 19 | journal | 1.986 Q1 | 41 | 84 | 320 | 5193 | 1636 | 320 | 5.16 | 61.82 | 38.68 | ||
| 20 | journal | 1.878 Q1 | 53 | 101 | 250 | 6816 | 1980 | 249 | 7.60 | 67.49 | 42.50 | ||
| 21 | journal | 1.822 Q1 | 200 | 117 | 326 | 8084 | 1862 | 302 | 5.67 | 69.09 | 46.82 | ||
| 22 | journal | 1.713 Q1 | 48 | 83 | 102 | 6537 | 725 | 101 | 6.30 | 78.76 | 42.69 | ||
| 23 | journal | 1.680 Q1 | 148 | 84 | 258 | 5048 | 1555 | 251 | 5.21 | 60.10 | 38.78 | ||
| 24 | journal | 1.675 Q1 | 111 | 79 | 124 | 11452 | 1016 | 124 | 8.13 | 144.96 | 46.74 | ||
| 25 | journal | 1.642 Q1 | 76 | 286 | 1111 | 19553 | 6102 | 1102 | 4.68 | 68.37 | 42.12 | ||
| 26 | journal | 1.378 Q1 | 321 | 551 | 2143 | 26833 | 8551 | 2115 | 3.77 | 48.70 | 43.13 | ||
| 27 | journal | 1.342 Q1 | 223 | 285 | 1348 | 19903 | 6495 | 1294 | 4.47 | 69.84 | 43.48 | ||
| 28 | journal | 1.338 Q1 | 52 | 245 | 572 | 14778 | 2420 | 570 | 3.97 | 60.32 | 46.02 | ||
| 29 | journal | 1.313 Q1 | 94 | 110 | 468 | 9261 | 2481 | 455 | 5.54 | 84.19 | 43.36 | ||
| 30 | journal | 1.285 Q1 | 120 | 1582 | 4297 | 94865 | 21526 | 4128 | 4.42 | 59.97 | 47.15 | ||
| 31 | journal | 1.277 Q1 | 20 | 23 | 71 | 1610 | 287 | 71 | 3.98 | 70.00 | 37.11 | ||
| 32 | journal | 1.273 Q1 | 65 | 26 | 70 | 2891 | 457 | 69 | 6.10 | 111.19 | 42.73 | ||
| 33 | journal | 1.260 Q1 | 96 | 122 | 400 | 9959 | 2202 | 366 | 5.29 | 81.63 | 41.36 | ||
| 34 | journal | 1.234 Q1 | 68 | 250 | 1072 | 13133 | 4118 | 1054 | 3.61 | 52.53 | 43.33 | ||
| 35 | journal | 1.208 Q1 | 271 | 143 | 517 | 9502 | 1651 | 501 | 2.89 | 66.45 | 43.17 | ||
| 36 | journal | 1.196 Q1 | 108 | 19 | 124 | 1101 | 580 | 123 | 4.60 | 57.95 | 44.36 | ||
| 37 | journal | 1.175 Q1 | 115 | 204 | 572 | 18979 | 3896 | 572 | 6.59 | 93.03 | 43.62 | ||
| 38 | journal | 1.158 Q1 | 8 | 43 | 29 | 3648 | 143 | 24 | 4.93 | 84.84 | 41.76 | ||
| 39 | journal | 1.145 Q1 | 157 | 12 | 268 | 704 | 889 | 257 | 2.90 | 58.67 | 53.09 | ||
| 40 | journal | 1.131 Q1 | 18 | 24 | 55 | 900 | 229 | 53 | 3.57 | 37.50 | 42.68 | ||
| 41 | journal | 1.092 Q1 | 56 | 62 | 181 | 3611 | 871 | 177 | 4.43 | 58.24 | 37.42 | ||
| 42 | journal | 1.078 Q1 | 91 | 74 | 181 | 4951 | 802 | 180 | 4.11 | 66.91 | 37.08 | ||
| 43 | journal | 1.069 Q1 | 183 | 171 | 586 | 12644 | 2376 | 577 | 3.70 | 73.94 | 45.13 | ||
| 44 | journal | 1.065 Q1 | 233 | 4359 | 13189 | 277843 | 61246 | 12831 | 4.02 | 63.74 | 44.33 | ||
| 45 | journal | 1.057 Q1 | 273 | 164 | 757 | 10292 | 2167 | 749 | 2.62 | 62.76 | 44.82 | ||
| 46 | journal | 1.042 Q2 | 242 | 191 | 730 | 12307 | 2268 | 723 | 2.85 | 64.43 | 47.34 | ||
| 47 | journal | 1.026 Q2 | 144 | 185 | 621 | 10025 | 3559 | 620 | 5.16 | 54.19 | 47.15 | ||
| 48 | journal | 1.026 Q2 | 219 | 262 | 853 | 14906 | 5086 | 852 | 5.70 | 56.89 | 48.76 | ||
| 49 | journal | 1.021 Q2 | 62 | 140 | 616 | 7935 | 2035 | 603 | 3.23 | 56.68 | 43.83 | ||
| 50 | journal | 1.010 Q2 | 20 | 70 | 83 | 4681 | 496 | 81 | 5.60 | 66.87 | 44.39 |
Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®
Cookie settings
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Privacy Policy
Top 10 Microbiology Journals with High Impact Factor (2023)
Here is the list of the top 10 microbiology journals with the highest impact factor for 2023 as of Journal Citation Reports 2024 (Clarivate).
- Nature Reviews Microbiology (Impact Factor: 69.2)
- iMeta (Impact Factor: 23.7)
- The Lancet Microbe (Impact Factor: 20.9)
- Cell Host and Microbe (Impact Factor: 20.6)
- Nature Microbiology (Impact Factor: 20.5)
- Clinical Microbiology Reviews (Impact Factor: 19.0)
- Trends in Microbiology (Impact Factor: 14.0)
- Microbiome (Impact Factor: 13.8)
- Gut Microbes (Impact Factor: 12.2)
- Clinical Microbiology and Infection (Impact Factor: 10.9)
Table of Contents
Interesting Science Videos
1. Nature Reviews Microbiology
The latest impact factor of Nature Reviews Microbiology for 2023 is 69.2.
Nature Reviews Microbiology aims to be the premier source of reviews and commentaries for the scientific communities we serve. Nature Reviews Microbiology strive to publish articles that are authoritative, accessible and enhanced with clearly understandable figures, tables and other display items. Nature Reviews Microbiology want to provide an unparalleled service to authors, referees and readers, and we work hard to maximize the usefulness and impact of each article. Nature Reviews Microbiology publishes Reviews, Perspectives and Comments from across the field of microbiology, with our broad scope ensuring that the work we publish reaches the widest possible audience.
Journal Website : https://www.nature.com/nrmicro/
The latest impact factor of iMeta for 2023 is 23.7.
iMeta publishes open access research that unites metagenomics and bioinformatics research. The journal scope includes microbiome in humans, animals, plants, and environment, meta-omics methods/protocols development and application, bioinformatics tools, pipelines, databases, and packages, and systematic reviews in metagenomics, bioinformatics, and microbiome.
Journal Website : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2770596x
3. The Lancet Microbe
The latest impact factor of The Lancet Microbe for 2023 is 20.9.
The Lancet Microbe publishes clinically relevant content on microbes at all scales—from the nature of the microbe (eg, antimicrobial resistance genes/plasmids, virulence factors) to the microbiome, to pathology (including immunology) to population level effects (eg, outbreaks, epidemiology). The Lancet Microbe also publish early phase clinical trials and other interventional studies where the outcomes are focused on the pathogen. The journal also continues in the The Lancet’s tradition of being a strong advocate for and collaborator with the community they serve. The Lancet Microbe publish a range of content types including Articles, Comment, Correspondence, Newsdesk, and Personal View.
Journal Website : https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/home
4. Cell Host & Microbe
The latest impact factor of Cell Host and Microbe for 2023 is 20.6.
Cell Host & Microbe was launched in March 2007. The journal’s mission is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and concepts between scientists studying the microbe with those studying the host immune, cell biological, and molecular response upon colonization or infection by a microbe. Cell Host & Microbe will publish novel findings related to microbes (which includes bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses) from molecular and cellular biology to translational studies with particular emphasis on the interface between the microbe and its host (vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant; unicellular or multicellular). The unifying theme is the integrated study of microbes (pathogenic, non-pathogenic, and commensal) in conjunction and communication with each other, their host, and the cellular environment they inhabit. Work published in Cell Host & Microbe is expected not only to be of exceptional significance within its field, but also of interest to researchers outside the immediate area. In addition to primary research manuscripts, Cell Host & Microbe will publish expert analysis, commentary, and reviews on topics of current interest in the field.
Journal Website : https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/home
5. Nature Microbiology
The latest impact factor of Nature Microbiology for 2023 is 20.5.
Nature Microbiology is an online-only, monthly journal publishing the best research from across the field of microbiology. All editorial decisions are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Microbiology is interested in all aspects of microorganisms, be it their evolution, physiology and cell biology; their interactions with each other, with a host or with an environment; or their societal significance. Nature Microbiology provides a place where all researchers and policymakers interested in microorganisms can come together to learn about the most accomplished and significant advances in the field and to discuss topical issues. An online-only monthly journal, our broad scope ensures that the research published reaches the widest possible audience of microbiologists.
Journal Website : https://www.nature.com/nmicrobiol/
6. Clinical Microbiology Reviews
The latest impact factor of Clinical Microbiology Reviews for 2023 is 19.0.
Clinical Microbiology Reviews analyzes the latest developments in clinical microbiology and immunology. Key topics include pathogenic mechanisms, individual and groups of microbial pathogens, clinical and laboratory aspects of newly recognized and reemerging infectious diseases, antimicrobial agents and their applications, and diagnostic laboratory technologies. Clinical Microbiology Reviews (CMR) accepts authoritative narrative reviews that are of primary interest to clinical microbiologists, medical microbiologists and immunologists, public health workers, infectious disease clinicians, and others interested in the pathogenesis, laboratory diagnosis, epidemiology, and control of human and veterinary pathogens.
Journal Website : https://journals.asm.org/journal/cmr
7. Trends in Microbiology
The latest impact factor of Trends in Microbiology for 2023 is 14.0.
Trends in Microbiology provides a multidisciplinary forum for the discussion of all aspects of microbiology: from cell biology and immunology to genetics and evolution, and ranges across virology, bacteriology, protozoology and mycology. The table of contents includes a lively mix of commentary, correspondence and review. Most articles are commissioned and all of them are peer-reviewed. Consequently, they make an authoritative basis for teaching and keeping abreast of developments across the field. The focus is on molecular microbiology and virology, and includes topics such as genomics, the gamut of plant and animal host-pathogen interactions, host immune responses, characterization and evolution of virulence determinants, cell cycle and differentiation, symbiosis in plant and animal associations, environmental microbiology, biodiversity and evolution, population dynamics, sex and mutagenesis, antibiotic resistance and production, drug and vaccine targets, as well as aspects of prion diseases and of fungal and protozoan biology.
Journal Website : https://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/home
8. Microbiome
The latest impact factor of Microbiome for 2023 is 13.8.
Microbiome encompasses studies of microbiomes colonizing humans, animals, plants or the environment, both built and natural or manipulated, as in agriculture. Studies on the development and application of meta-omics approaches or novel bioinformatics tools, on community/host interaction with emphasis on structure-function relationship that would lead to substantial advances in the field will be considered for publication. Microbiome is especially interested in studies that go beyond descriptive omics surveys and include experimental or theoretical approaches that mechanistically support proposed microbiome functions, and establish, if possible, cause and effect relationships. Studies of individual microbial isolates/species in vivo or in laboratory cultures without exploring the mechanisms by which they affect the complex microbiome structures and functions will not be considered. Through this collection of literature, Microbiome hopes to integrate researchers with common scientific objectives across a broad cross-section of sub-disciplines within microbial ecology.
Journal Website : https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/
9. Gut Microbes
The latest impact factor of Gut Microbes for 2023 is 12.2.
Gut Microbes provides a platform for presenting and discussing cutting-edge research on all aspects of microorganisms populating the intestine. The journal focuses in particular on mechanistic and cause and effect studies. Gut Microbes is the sister journal of Gut Microbes Reports, which has a greater focus on emerging topics and comparative and incremental studies. Gut Microbes brings together a multidisciplinary community of scientists working in the areas of Profiling the intestinal microbiota, Gastrointestinal disease: mechanisms, host defense, diagnosis, epidemiology, Host-pathogen interactions including enteric disease and bacterial pathogenesis, Quorum sensing and toxicity, Probiotics and prebiotics, Novel treatments and clinical trials, Role of intestinal microbiota in health and disease, etc. Gut Microbes accepts Research Papers/Reports, Reviews, Brief Reports, Research Letters, Commentaries and Views, Creative Commentaries, Meeting Reports, Data Notes, Invited Editorials for publication.
Journal Website : https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/kgmi20
10. Clinical Microbiology and Infection
The latest impact factor of Clinical Microbiology and Infection for 2023 is 10.9.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) is a monthly publication in English of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and publishes peer-reviewed papers that present basic and applied research relevant to therapy and diagnostics in the fields of microbiology, infectious diseases, virology, parasitology, immunology, and epidemiology as related to these fields.
Journal Website : https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/
Disclaimer: Logos and information are only used for educational purposes. If there are any copyright issues regarding the logo and information of the journal, please email us at [email protected] .
How is the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) calculated?
The JIF is defined as citations to the journal in the JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of citable items, (i.e., Articles and Reviews) published in the journal in the previous two years. The JCR year is the last complete year within that year’s JCR data set. For example, the JCR year for the 2024 release is 2023.
- Journal Citation Reports 2024: https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr/home
- Nature Reviews Microbiology
- The Lancet Microbe
- Cell Host and Microbe
- Nature Microbiology
- Clinical Microbiology Reviews
- Trends in Microbiology
- Gut Microbes
- Clinical Microbiology and Infection
About Author
Sagar Aryal
1 thought on “Top 10 Microbiology Journals with High Impact Factor (2023)”
Great article! Will check out these psychology journals!
Leave a Comment Cancel reply
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Please enable JavaScript in your web browser to get the best experience.
We use cookies to track usage and preferences.
Primary navigation
- PhD students
- Exhibitions
- Translation
- Work experience
Research reveals impact of gut microbiome on hormone levels in mice
- Date created: 26 September 2024
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
Researchers at the Francis Crick Institute have shown that the balance of bacteria in the gut can influence symptoms of hypopituitarism in mice.
They also showed that aspirin was able to improve hormone deficiency symptoms in mice with this condition.
Christophe Galichet and Robin Lovell-Badge were researching mouse Sox3 mutations, which cause hypopituitarism in mice and humans, at the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). When they transferred mice with Sox3 mutations from the NIMR to the Crick, they made an unexpected discovery.
People with mutations in a gene called Sox3 develop hypopituitarism, where the pituitary gland doesn’t make enough hormones. It can result in growth problems, infertility and poor responses of the body to stress.
In research published today in PLOS Genetics , the scientists at the Crick removed Sox3 from mice, causing them to develop hypopituitarism around the time of weaning (starting to eat solid food).
They found that mutations in Sox3 largely affect the hypothalamus in the brain, which instructs the pituitary gland to release hormones. However, the gene is normally active in several brain cell types, so the first task was to ask which specific cells were most affected by its absence.
The scientists observed a reduced number of cells called NG2 glia, suggesting that these play a critical role in inducing the pituitary gland cells to mature around weaning, which was not known previously. This could explain the associated impact on hormone production.
The team then treated the mice with a low dose of aspirin for 21 days. This caused the number of NG2 glia in the hypothalamus to increase and reversed the symptoms of hypopituitarism in the mice.
NG2 glia (red) in the median eminence, which connects the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, are reduced in the mice with Sox3 mutations (right-hand panel).
Although it’s not yet clear how aspirin had this effect, the findings suggest that it could be explored as a potential treatment for people with Sox3 mutations or other situations where the NG2 glia are compromised.
It was a huge surprise to find that changes in the gut microbiome reversed hypopituitarism in the mice without Sox3. Christophe Galichet
An incidental discovery revealed the role of gut bacteria in hormone production
When the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) merged with the Crick in 2015, mouse embryos were transferred from the former building to the latter, and this included the mice with Sox3 mutations.
When these mice reached the weaning stage at the Crick, the researchers were surprised to find that they no longer had the expected hormonal deficiencies.
After exploring a number of possible causes, lead author Christophe Galichet compared the microbiome – bacteria, fungi and viruses that live in the gut – in the mice from the Crick and mice from the NIMR, observing several differences in its makeup and diversity. This could have been due to the change in diet, water environment, or other factors that accompanied the relocation.
He also examined the number of NG2 glia in the Crick mice, finding that these were also at normal levels, suggesting that the Crick-fed microbiome was somehow protective against hypopituitarism.
To confirm this theory, Christophe transplanted faecal matter retained from NIMR mice into Crick mice, observing that the Crick mice once again showed symptoms of hypopituitarism and had lower numbers of NG2 glia.
Although the exact mechanism is unknown, the scientists conclude that the make-up of the gut microbiome is an example of an important environmental factor having a significant influence on the consequences of a genetic mutation, in this case influencing the function of the hypothalamus and pituitary gland.
Christophe Galichet , former Senior Laboratory Research Scientist at the Crick and now Research Operations Manager at the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre , said: “It was a huge surprise to find that changes in the gut microbiome reversed hypopituitarism in the mice without Sox3 . It’s reinforced to me how important it is to be aware of all variable factors, including the microbiome, when working with animals in research and how nurture can influence nature.”
Robin Lovell-Badge , Group Leader of the Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics Laboratory at the Crick, said: “Hypopituitarism can result from trauma as well as rare mutations, and it can have some profound effects on health in general. As well as suggesting potential options for treatment, our work reinforces how important the gut-brain link is. The next step for this research will be to work out exactly how aspirin and the microbiome influence NG2 glia, and then study this effect in people so we can see if these relatively accessible interventions could help treat hypopituitarism.”
Related links
- Read the paper in PLOS Genetics
Share the page
Sign up for our newsletters.
Join our mailing lists to receive updates about our latest research and to hear about our free public events and exhibitions. If you would like to find out more about how we manage your personal information please see our privacy policy .
The Francis Crick Institute is a unique partnership between
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?
Andreu prados-bo.
1 Department of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
2 Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain
Gonzalo Casino
3 Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
Associated Data
All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers ( The New York Times , The Times and El País ) and three business newspapers ( The Wall Street Journal , the Financial Times and Expansión ), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.
Introduction
On 19 December 2007, four years after the completion of the Human Genome Project, the Human Microbiome Project (HMP), conceived as a “second human genome project” [ 1 ], was launched. HMP focuses on microbial communities and their genomes on and in the human body, collectively known as the microbiome [ 2 ]. Research into the microbiome dates back to the early 20th century [ 3 ]. The 21st century, however, has witnessed a paradigm shift regarding the crucial role microbes play in the way ecosystems—from the ocean to the human body—function, rather than only being seen as infectious pathogens [ 4 ].
Relationships between microorganisms living in our bodies—especially in the gut—and health and risk of disease are currently a major focus of research, public interest and potential business for the pharmaceutical and health industries [ 4 ]. Much research in the field has focused on the link between the microbiome and physical and mental well-being, with current unknowns highlighting the need for advancement [ 5 ]. An altered human microbiome has been associated with the development of a wide range of diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, metabolic syndrome, autoimmune disorders, and brain diseases, although causation has yet to be established [ 6 ]. Furthermore, microbiome research also has implications for food production [ 7 ] and for achieving an environmentally sustainable future [ 8 ].
As scholarship and investment in microbiome research develop, it is also important to address the impact of that research in general and business newspapers, which are relevant sources of information and can influence the decisions of the public, investors, health decision makers and healthcare practitioners [ 9 , 10 ]. Scientific articles mentioned in the lay press receive, on average, more citations in academic journals than comparable publications from the same journal that did not appear in the lay press [ 11 – 16 ]. The factors associated with greater levels of newspaper coverage for scientific papers have also been studied. They include the prestige of the journal [ 17 ], the availability of press releases [ 18 – 22 ], the domestic preference of newspapers for journals from their own country [ 23 ], and the newsworthiness of the topic [ 24 ].
Although nowadays many people do not obtain their information directly from newspapers, news from traditional media outlets continues to dominate the information repertoire of mobile internet users [ 25 , 26 ]. Social media, which has become an emerging source for keeping up with scientific issues [ 27 ], also relies heavily on newspapers to disseminate news among young people and adults [ 28 , 29 ].
Despite the current scientific interest in the microbiome, its social impact in newspapers has not been properly analyzed. One relevant way of studying the subject is by analyzing the number of newspaper articles in which authors, papers or journals are cited (called “press citations”) [ 18 , 23 , 30 ]. As such, our first objective was to analyze the extent to which the predictable increase in the number of microbiome papers in recent years has had a parallel impact in the press, in both general and business newspapers, given the potential for harnessing the human microbiome to prevent, diagnose or cure disease.
Previous studies showed that study designs based on weak methodology (i.e. observational and animal or laboratory studies) are more likely to be covered in newspapers than those of superior quality (i.e. randomized controlled trials) [ 18 , 31 , 32 ]. Microbiome research over the past two decades has mainly focused on characterizing microbiome composition across cohorts of clinical patients and matched controls, and on using animal models to understand the causal mechanisms [ 33 ]. We hypothesize that studies’ methodological rigor is not a major driver when selecting news stories on the microbiome for coverage by newspapers. Our second objective was to undertake a controlled comparison of the study designs of the microbiome papers featured in newspapers against those of the microbiome papers that appear in PubMed. Such an analysis allows us to build a picture of microbiome science’s current level of maturity, which shapes both society’s perception and the decisions individuals make in relation to their health.
Newspaper coverage of microbiome research
Based on previous studies of press coverage of biomedical research [ 34 – 37 ], we used the Factiva database to search for news stories on the microbiome in three general newspapers ( The New York Times , The Times and El País ) and three business newspapers ( The Wall Street Journal , the Financial Times and Expansión ) from the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, respectively. Those three countries were selected as they were representative of three previously identified national patterns (American, British and Western World) of biomedical reporting in the press [ 23 ]. Print and online editions of each newspaper were analyzed together, after ruling out duplicate news stories. The period analyzed begins in 2007—when the HMP was launched [ 38 ]—and ends in 2019.
Fig 1 shows how news stories on the microbiome were selected and categorized. First, we identified news stories in the Factiva database from the 6 newspapers that mentioned the microbiome and its hyponyms in any part of the text, no matter how many times. We excluded duplicates, infographics and other non-relevant news stories, as well as those in which the term microbiota referred to Microbiota decussata , commonly known as Siberian cypress, or plant flora. After filtering out opinion articles and editorials [ 19 ], we went on to study the newspapers’ interest in the microbiome (first objective), for which we identified news stories that devoted 50% or more of the text length (estimated by word count) to reporting on the microbiome (n = 518) [ 39 ]. Then, to analyze which study designs made the news compared to PubMed (second objective), we focused on microbiome news stories that cited at least one scientific paper (n = 361). For this objective, news stories with the following characteristics were excluded [ 19 ]: 1) the microbiome was reported but without reference to a specific study; 2) the microbiome was not a variable of the scientific paper cited in the news story; or 3) the news story was based on premature microbiome research not published in peer-review journals, such as studies presented at scientific or press meetings and ongoing clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
Additionally, we studied news interest in the microbiome in the context of biomedicine by quantifying news stories citing the microbiome in the headline and published by SINC, which is a Spanish publicly-funded news agency specializing in science and technology. SINC agency ( https://www.agenciasinc.es/ ) was chosen because it publishes under a Creative Commons 4.0 license and most Spanish newspapers and scientific online sources usually pick up SINC articles to inform the public.
The microbiome in the context of biomedicine
To estimate the relative interest in microbiome research in the context of biomedical research as a whole, we counted both papers on the microbiome and the total number of scientific publications in the PubMed database of biomedical literature from 2008 to 2018. News agency SINC, which classified news about biomedicine separately until 2018, was used to count the number of news stories on the microbiome against the whole of the biomedicine category. We used data from SINC because the number of news stories on biomedicine in newspapers cannot be calculated using Factiva. Thus, we had an estimate of the press interest in the microbiome from 2008 (when SINC was founded) to 2018 (when it finished categorizing news stories) to compare with the estimate in PubMed.
Study designs of microbiome papers in PubMed and research news
We adapted the criteria used by Bartlett et al. [ 18 ] and Lai and Lane [ 31 ] for categorizing the study design of medical research news to microbiome research. As such, we classified the microbiome paper study designs available in PubMed and reported in newspapers into 6 categories: 1) systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans; 2) RCTs in humans; 3) human observational studies (defined as prospective and retrospective cohort studies, ecological studies, case-control studies, SRs not of RCTs, and case series); 4) environmental & plant studies (agricultural, aquatic, atmospheric, built environment and terrestrial ecosystems) [ 40 ]; 5) animal or laboratory studies; and 6) other designs (interventional studies without randomization and/or without a control group, case reports, narrative or nonsystematic reviews, consensus and reports of expert committees). We excluded commentaries, editorials, perspectives and letters, as such articles do not usually contain research evidence and are not always peer-reviewed [ 31 ]. Each scientific study cited in the press was identified on PubMed and downloaded for study design characterization. In PubMed, we set the MeSH and natural terms search to title, abstract and keywords, and applied filters for study designs. It should be acknowledged that PubMed counts articles published in online and print versions separately [ 41 ]. The searches were performed by one author (APB) between January and March 2020. Search phrases and filters used in Factiva and PubMed are listed in the supplementary S1 and S2 Files and the data acquired and used for analyses are included in S1 Dataset .
Statistical analyses
The primary outcome variable was the number of news stories on the microbiome collected by year from 2007 to 2019 that cited at least one scientific paper. That variable was presented as the mean and standard deviation for the overall sample and subinterest groups: individual newspapers, country (United States, United Kingdom and Spain) and newspaper type (general and business).
The relationship between two quantitative variables was evaluated using the Pearson correlation (linear adjustment): the number of news stories on microbiome papers per year in newspapers and published by SINC and the number of microbiome papers per year in PubMed. The average annual percentage change was evaluated for both the overall sample and the subinterest groups: individual newspapers, country and press type. Finally, the comparison between microbiome news/biomedicine news published by SINC vs microbiome papers/biomedicine papers in PubMed was carried out using a Chi Square test.
The level of significance was set at 0.05. Version 3.5.2 of software R (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and version 4.7.0.0 of the Joinpoint Regression Program were used for all analysis work.
Overall, 518 news stories with the microbiome as the main topic were published from 2007 to 2019, of which 361 cited at least one journal article (286 in general newspapers and 75 in business newspapers) ( Fig 1 ). News stories on microbiome papers showed an irregular pattern of evolution compared to microbiome papers in PubMed ( Fig 2A ). Apart from a peak in 2008, the interest of general newspapers in microbiome research picked up steadily after 2012 with peaks in 2013, 2016 and 2018 ( Fig 2B ). News stories on microbiome papers represented 77.9% of overall news stories on the microbiome in The New York Times , 74.1% in The Times , and 78.6% in El País . The New York Times showed the most intense microbiome research coverage (10.3 news stories on microbiome papers annually), followed by The Times (6.8 news stories on microbiome papers annually) and, lastly, El País (5.1 news stories on microbiome papers annually) ( Table 1 ).
(A) Individual newspapers; (B) General vs business newspapers; (C) Newspapers grouped by countries (the USA, the UK and Spain); (D) Microbiome news/biomedicine news published by SINC (2008–2018) vs microbiome papers/biomedicine papers in PubMed (2007–2019). Microbiome papers in PubMed are presented as a black curve on each graph.
| Annual cites from 2007 to 2019 | Cites in 2007 | Cites in 2019 | Average annual percentage change | Correlations with microbiome papers in PubMed (p-value) | Correlations with microbiome news published by SINC (p-value) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9297,0 (6063.3) | 2600 | 21292 | 19.6% | - | ||
| 1111673,6 (203280.1) | 785933 | 1397557 | 4.9% | - | - | |
| 0.8% | 0.4% | 1.4% | 9.6% | - | - | |
| 8,1 (5.9) | 0 | 9 | 24.8% | - | ||
| 582.1 (81.1) | 666 | 447 | -3.7% | - | - | |
| 1.6% | 0.2% | 2.2% | 19.5% | - | - | |
| 4.6 (4.9) | 2.3 (2.2) | 7.8 (7.5) | 13.9% | |||
| 10.3 (6.4) | 5 | 20 | 16.0% | 0.48 (0.095) | ||
| 6.8 (4.4) | 5 | 13 | 14.3% | 0.47 (0.102) | ||
| 5.1 (4.0) | 1 | 8 | 22.7% | |||
| 4.1 (1.8) | 2 | 4 | 2.9% | 0.14 (0.652) | 0.35 (0.236) | |
| 1.5 (1.6) | 1 | 2 | 11.8% | 0.39 (0.177) | ||
| 0.2 (0.6) | 0 | 0 | 4.3% | 0.41 (0.166) | 0.11 (0.713) | |
| USA | 7.2 (5.6) | 3.5 (2.1) | 12.0 (11.3) | 12.0% | ||
| UK | 4.1 (4.2) | 3.0 (2.8) | 7.5 (7.8) | 14.5% | ||
| Spain | 2.7 (3.7) | 0.5 (0.7) | 4.0 (5.7) | 23.1% | ||
| General newspaper | 7.4 (5.4) | 3.7 (2.3) | 13.7 (6.0) | 15.7% | ||
| Business newspaper | 1.9 (2.1) | 1.0 (1.0) | 2.0 (2.0) | 7.2% | 0.39 (0.185) | |
Mean followed by the standard deviation in parentheses is indicated for microbiome/biomedicine papers in PubMed, microbiome/biomedicine news in SINC and news stories on microbiome papers in newspapers.
1 The numbers showed the Pearson correlation coefficient.
2 News stories published by SINC were available from 2008 to 2018.
Significant p-values are highlighted in bold.
In business newspapers, news stories on microbiome papers represented 56.4% of the overall number of microbiome news stories for The Wall Street Journal , 52.8% for the Financial Times , and 18.8% for Expansión . The Wall Street Journal was the business newspaper that featured microbiome research the most, followed by the Financial Times (4.1 and 1.5 news stories on microbiome papers annually, respectively). In contrast, news stories on microbiome papers in Expansión were almost null ( Table 1 ).
The strong presence of research in news stories about the microbiome in the press was also supported by significant correlations between the number of news stories on microbiome papers in general newspapers and the number of microbiome papers in PubMed ( r = 0.91, p < 0.001). The magnitude of that association was greater for the American and British general newspapers ( r = 0.85, p = 0.002 and r = 0.81, p = 0.001, respectively) than for their Spanish counterpart ( r = 0.75, p = 0.003) ( Table 1 ). The strong interest in microbiome research shown by American newspapers compared to British and Spanish newspapers is also apparent in Fig 2C .
As shown in the PubMed curve ( Fig 2A–2C ), scientific interest in the microbiome gradually grew after 2007 and then picked up speed around 2011. The percentage of microbiome papers available in PubMed and microbiome news published by SINC against the total number of biomedicine publications increased significantly year on year, with a positive annual percentage change of 9.6% and 19.5%, respectively ( Table 1 ). Of the total biomedical literature available in PubMed from 2008 to 2018, the number of microbiome papers increased from 0.4% to 1.4%. Of all the health and biomedical news stories published by SINC, articles citing the microbiome in the headline went from 0.2% to 2.2% from 2008 to 2018, thus doubling the trends shown by PubMed ( Fig 2D and Table 1 ). The comparison between microbiome news/biomedicine news published by SINC vs microbiome papers/biomedicine papers in PubMed almost reached statistical significance (p = 0.052).
Papers covered in the news and number of press citations
In the 361 news stories on microbiome papers, 700 different papers published in scientific journals were cited. Each of those 700 papers was covered in at least one news story in one of the six newspapers. Some papers were covered several times in different news stories from different newspapers or from the same newspaper, resulting in a total of 825 press citations of the 700 papers.
The most cited papers (8 press citations) were “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota” (the only paper that was cited in all six newspapers) [ 42 ] and “Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice” [ 43 ]. Two papers had 7 press citations; 1 paper had 6 citations; 2 papers had 4 citations; 8 papers had 3 citations; 72 papers had 2 citations; and the remaining 613 papers had 1 press citation. The papers were cited in the newspapers generally within three months of publication (64.0% for general newspapers and 48.6% for business newspapers).
The study design of microbiome papers available in PubMed between 2007 and 2019 were as follows: 1.8% were SRs of RCTs in humans; 10.9% were RCTs in humans; 8.5% were human observational studies; 46.5% were environmental & plant studies; 30.4% were animal or laboratory studies; and 1.9% had other designs (see methods ).
Fig 3 illustrates the over-representation (the percentage of microbiome study design in the press was higher than in PubMed) or under-representation (the percentage of microbiome study design in the press was lower than in PubMed) of microbiome study designs in newspapers vs PubMed. A common pattern was observed among the general and business newspapers that was characterized by an over-representation of observational studies in humans and an under-representation of environmental & plant studies. In contrast, SRs of RCTs in humans, RCTs in humans and animal or laboratory studies tended to be represented to the same degree in newspapers as in PubMed ( Fig 3A and 3B ).
In terms of study design, no major differences were found between countries ( Fig 3B ). However, particular features were observed when analyzing newspapers at an individual level. The New York Times showed an over-representation (five-fold increase) of SRs of RCTs in humans, while The Times over-represented (seven-fold increase) RCTs compared to PubMed. In contrast, business newspapers covered a similar number of observational studies in humans and animal/laboratory studies (58/181 and 54/181), with the latter over-represented in The Wall Street Journal ( Fig 3A ).
This is the first study to explore how high-circulation newspapers cover microbiome research in terms of the number of news stories and study design compared to PubMed. Our analysis shows some patterns across newspapers.
First, it should be noted that the proportion of papers on the microbiome in relation to all papers in PubMed has increased steadily from 2007 to 2019, with significant year-to-year growth. That proportion is difficult to estimate for newspapers as they do not classify biomedicine news separately from other news, but a similar increase is shown in publications by SINC, which categorized biomedical news separately until 2018.
Second, an increase in the number of microbiome papers from 2007 to 2019 has resulted in newspapers paying considerable attention to microbiome research, albeit not in a balanced proportion between newspapers. The first peak in press coverage of microbiome research in general newspapers, which took place in 2008, can be explained by the fact that that was the year when large human microbiome research initiatives were launched. They included the first phase of the HMP, the International Human Microbiome Consortium, the EU’s Metagenomics of the Human Intestinal Tract (METAHIT) project and the Canadian Microbiome Initiative, among others [ 40 ]. The subsequent publication of milestone papers in June 2012, reporting on five years of research, triggered an increase in the newspapers’ interest in the microbiome [ 44 ]. A news peak in 2013 was observed in The New York Times , with half of the stories covering research into microbes’ role in obesity and cardiovascular disease. That sudden increase also reflects the launch of the second wave of human microbiome projects, including the second phase of the HMP, the European Commission-funded My New Gut program and the French Government’s MetaGenoPolis program [ 40 ].
Third, business newspapers are not as sensitive to the two waves of microbiome research projects as general newspapers. That may have two explanations. On the one hand, microbiome-related patents have increased less markedly than scientific publications [ 45 ]. On the other hand, no microbiome therapeutics requiring US Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority or European Medicines Agency scrutiny have been approved for human use as yet [ 46 ].
Fourth, the American and British newspapers were the ones to mention microbiome papers the most. That is not surprising because the US-based National Institutes of Health (NIH) has provided nearly two-thirds of funding for microbiome research [ 45 ]. The findings also reflect American and British journalism’s longer scientific tradition and the countries’ dominant position in the scientific literature [ 23 ]. British and American newspapers also echo the top medical journals the most, with The New York Times standing out [ 23 ]. Similarly, The New York Times covered the Human Genome Project the most [ 1 ].
Fifth, the abundance of observational studies in humans in newspapers may be rooted in the over-representation of this kind of study design in press releases from journals and institutions [ 18 , 21 ], which can influence the content of subsequent microbiome news stories [ 22 ]. Our results are in agreement with those of Lai and Lane, who found that English-language general and business newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies and less likely to feature SRs of RCTs, RCTs and animal/laboratory studies [ 31 ]. Similar to our findings in general newspapers, the authors identified a similar percentage of systematic reviews of RCTs and animal/laboratory studies in the press (3% and 17%, respectively), but did not provide a comparison group of study designs available in PubMed [ 31 ]. Previous research showed that, when choosing observational studies, the press covers study designs of a lower quality (such as those with smaller sample sizes) compared to those published in high impact medical journals. That, in turn, might contribute to distorting the end image of medical advances [ 32 ]. The remarkable under-representation of environmental & plant studies in the newspapers under analysis might be rooted in the fact that these studies may be less newsworthy because they do not have a direct impact on human health. Indeed, surveys have shown that the topics of greatest interest to society are those of medicine and health, with scientific and technological discoveries and the environment and ecology generating far less interest [ 9 , 47 ]. Second, the level of knowledge required for journalists to understand and communicate the findings of these kinds of studies in layman’s terms can be higher than that required for observational study types, which could lead to their under-representation in the press. Third, environmental & plant studies are not usually published in top journals, which generally issue press releases, and that can have a negative effect on their impact in newspapers [ 18 – 22 ].
It is also important to acknowledge that the over-representation of observational study designs can distort the public’s perceived image of the microbiome, as those study design types are often reported inaccurately in newspapers and usually do not mention any associated caveats and limitations [ 48 ]. For instance, while an altered microbiome has been reported in a wide variety of health conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome, obesity and depression, often, it cannot be determined whether differences in the microbiome are causing the disease or, conversely, if the disease itself is causing the differences [ 49 ]. The fact that SRs of RCTs, RCTs and animal or laboratory studies tended to be represented to the same degree in newspapers compared to PubMed, with animal or laboratory studies being the second type of study design most cited in PubMed, reflects how microbiome research is still mainly based on basic science. It is worth highlighting that the reporting of SRs of RCTs and RCTs in The New York Times and The Times , respectively, may be seen as an indicator of good quality journalism. It should also be noted that the USA and the UK are the countries that produce the most Cochrane SRs [ 50 ] and that newspapers tend to report more on domestically produced science [ 23 ]. On the other hand, the over-representation of animal/laboratory studies in the business newspapers, which is mainly down to The Wall Street Journal , is expected as preclinical microbiome research (representing 30.4% of microbiome studies in PubMed) is the first step towards developing microbiome therapies, and that is where most companies’ initial efforts begin. Only a handful of microbiome-related products have entered the end phase of clinical trials [ 46 ] and that is reflected in reduced coverage of RCTs in the business press.
Beyond the study design of microbiome papers, the fact that we focused on influential newspapers in terms of readership and circulation might explain the intense coverage of scientific articles about the microbiome, as these newspapers usually have large science and medicine sections with specialist reporters [ 23 ]. Other factors might also explain why some microbiome papers are finally echoed by newspapers. They include the impact factor of the journal [ 16 , 17 ], the availability of press releases [ 18 – 22 ], the domestic preference of newspapers for journals from their own country [ 23 ], and the newsworthiness of the topic [ 24 ]. The last factor is especially relevant in the case of the microbiome, due to the ever-increasing interest among both researchers and the lay public in targeting the microbiome to maintain health and quality of life [ 4 ]. An overall analysis considering all of these factors is needed to better elucidate how microbiome research is echoed in the media.
In the light of the ever-increasing amount of research about the link between the microbiome and human health and disease [ 4 ], one of the field’s urgent needs is precisely that of ensuring unbiased communication of microbiome research to the general public. In that regard, some journals published by the BMJ group indicate the evidence type and subjects studied to journalists when sending embargoed press releases, which may help inform reporting on microbiome findings [ 51 , 52 ]. Keeping up with the huge amount of research and publications on the microbiome and receiving training in science communication skills are also necessary for communicating microbiome research with caution and free from misinterpretation [ 4 ]. The European Society of Neurogastroenterology & Motility’s Gut Microbiota for Health platform ( https://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/ ) is an example of a project that aims to translate the latest research on the rapidly-evolving field of the gut microbiome for both the scientific community and the lay public.
Although scientific interest in microbiome research has driven an increase in news stories based on research findings, the patterns observed in study design coverage need to be tracked in order to inform on the evolution of the science behind the current microbial momentum being experienced by society. For microbiome scientists, the coverage of their research in newspapers and its dissemination in social media can improve their visibility and scientific citations. It is also important to acknowledge the potential role of media coverage in obtaining research funding, without forgetting that, although mentions of scholarly outputs on social media and news sites are becoming increasingly present in policy papers and research calls, it is too early to consider whether they contribute to the awarding of research funding [ 53 ].
One strength of our study is that we focused on both general and business newspapers ranked high in circulation from different countries over a long period of 12 years. Rather than gauging only news stories considered immediately newsworthy (that is, generated in response to a paper within 2 months of its publication), we analyzed all news stories on microbiome papers regardless of paper publication date. In addition, we analyzed the number of news stories on microbiome papers and study designs reported in newspapers vs patterns in PubMed.
Our study also has limitations. We did not focus on studying the impact of microbiome research in other mass media such as low-circulation newspapers, magazines, radio, television or the Internet. Moreover, our selection of international general and business newspapers is not representative of the general and business press around the world, even though our selection includes some of the most widely read and best quality international newspapers. Furthermore, our analysis only focuses on quantitative aspects. As a result, the study of all representations of the microbiome in the selected newspapers, regardless of whether they cite a scientific study, is limited in scope and deserves the application of a qualitative methodology that is outside the scope of our research objectives. Other authors have previously addressed newspaper coverage of the microbiome based on qualitative aspects, such as the tone of the discourse [ 54 ] and language employed to discuss advances in the microbiome [ 55 ], highlighting the need for microbiology literacy in society due to the role of microbes in the health of our planet [ 56 ]. Finally, analyzing the press citations of authors, papers or journals also has its limitations, given that their mentioning in newspaper articles does not provide any information about the context of the citation or the quality of the journalistic text.
Conclusions
Our results show that the microbiome is receiving increasing attention in both research and the press. News stories on the microbiome in both the general and business press during the period under study were mostly based on research findings. While the volume of microbiome-based scientific studies in the press mirrors the number of scientific papers in PubMed, the choice of studies covered by general and business newspapers over-represent observational studies and under-represent environmental & plant studies, while showing a similar degree of representation for SRs of RCTs, RCTs and animal or laboratory studies.
Supporting information
Acknowledgments.
We wish to thank Mireia Bosch, Juan Carlos Martín and Queralt Miró for their support with data management and statistical analyses, and María García-Puente, Alicia Jarillo and Marta Diaz for their assistance with searches in PubMed. We also appreciate the critical insights received from Prof. Paul Enck while preparing the manuscript.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Data Availability
- PLoS One. 2021; 16(4): e0249835.
Decision Letter 0
PONE-D-20-23472
Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: which study designs make the news?
Dear Dr. Prados-Bo,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by 30th October 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
- A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
- A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
- An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Bright Nwaru
Academic Editor
Additional Editor Comments:
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:
"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:
APB is a paid consultant to companies commercially involved in the gut microbiota and probiotics. GC has declared no competing interests."
Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests ). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.
Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.
Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Partly
Reviewer #2: Partly
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: No
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: In the manuscript entitled “Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: which study designs make the news?" the Authors provide a comprehensive statistical overview of a time span of a decade of microbiome related articles in three general newspapers, three business newspapers and from scientific articles featured in PubMed, as well as in the science news agency SINC. Besides showing the increased relative abundance of microbiome associated articles in these newspapers and in the scientific database PubMed, the authors characterized the design type of the primary literature articles allowing insight onto the impact on the press. It is an interesting analysis, but the scope and conclusions are rather limited. To assure a better quality of the submitted paper, there are several suggestions to be considered:
Major points
1. The exact and long-term aim of such analysis could be better explained. It is important for researchers to translate their results to the general public. What they can improve?
2. Are the news coverages coming from the article press-releases? This is important to address.
3. It would be interesting to analyze if the citations of the paper depend on press coverage.
4. The remarkable under-representation in the press of environmental & plant studies should be better explained in the discussion. A potential reason could be that environmental & plant studies are harder to apprehend in context of the microbiome to make reader-friendly stories in the press. (?)
5. The limitations of the study by not including the impact of microbiome research in other media have been mentioned in the discussion. A short explanation of the methodological limitations using other types of media could underline the reason for the restricted methods with “only” six newspapers analyzed.
Minor points
1. The visualization of filtering process in Fig.1 could be improved by highlighting the selected paths for analysis.
Reviewer #2: In the current manuscript the authors performed an analysis of microbiome study coverage in general and business newspaper from 2008-2018. The topic is potentially of interest for the scientific community to reach the best coverage of their finding in the news. However, there are several limitations due to the reported findings.
1) For this reviewer it is completely unclear how the authors evaluated the media coverage of certain articles. As far as I interpreted the reported data, the authors have classified articles available on PubMed regarding study evidence. I would prefer to have a comparison between top quality RCTs regarding media coverage. What was the reason for reports in the media? This would support scientists in getting their research recognized by lay audience via media coverage.
2) What was the difference between the three countries and did the authors evaluate reasons for the observed differences?
3) There should be a fact box included on game changers regarding media coverage of scientific data.
4) Was the media coverage accompanied by better funding of research groups? This would be essential information that could enhance the impact of the reported data.
5) Additionally the authors only report regarding newspapers, which is not targeting the younger population. What about social media, online publications,..?
6) In the current form, the data of the manuscript might be better reported in a letter to the editor.
Minor comment:
1) Fig.1. Please specify what Op-Ed is.
2) Please provide more information about SINC (country, city) and why this agency was chosen.
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .
Reviewer #2: No
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 0
29 Oct 2020
Academic editor’s comments:
Journal requirements
01 Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file naming.
Both new files ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ and ‘Manuscript’ meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements regarding title, author, affiliations and main body. We have also updated file naming for figures and for supporting information, which have been resubmitted to meet PLOS requirements.
02 Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:
Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests ). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.
We have included our updated Competing Interests statement in the cover letter so the online submission form may be changed on our behalf.
Reviewers’ comments: review comments to the author
Reviewer #1
01 The exact and long-term aim of such analysis could be better explained. It is important for researchers to translate their results to the general public. What they can improve?
Thank you for your consideration.
We have changed the way we state the aim and scope of our analysis in the introduction and discussion of the manuscript.
02 Are the news coverages coming from the article press-releases? This is important to address.
Thank you for acknowledging this point. Although this objective has not yet been studied in the context of the microbiome, it has been subject to considerable study for different scientific and biomedical topics (Entwistle, 1995; De Semir et al., 1998; Stryker, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2012). For instance, one of the manuscript’s authors has documented that journalistic articles in the Spanish press discussing current biomedical issues are intensely mediated by press releases (Casino, 2015).
The study of microbiome-related press releases does not seem to be a priority at the moment and such an exercise will require another methodology that is outside the scope of our manuscript.
We have clarified in the introduction of the manuscript that the influence of press releases on news coverage of scientific and biomedical topics has been widely studied.
03 It would be interesting to analyze if the citations of the paper depend on press coverage.
Thank you for your observation. Previous studies cited in the manuscript’s introduction have shown that scientific articles that receive press coverage have, on average, more citations in the scientific literature compared to those not mentioned in the press.
Exploring to what extent citations of microbiome papers depend on press coverage is outside the scope of this manuscript.
In the introduction of the first submitted version of the manuscript, we cited studies (references 11-16) supporting the influence of press coverage on subsequent scientific citations.
04 The remarkable under-representation in the press of environmental & plant studies should be better explained in the discussion. A potential reason could be that environmental & plant studies are harder to apprehend in context of the microbiome to make reader-friendly stories in the press. (?)
Thank you for encouraging us to reflect on an explanation for the under-representation in the press of environmental & plant studies.
We have explained in the discussion that the remarkable under-representation of environmental & plant studies in the newspapers under analysis might have its roots in the fact that the level of knowledge required to understand and communicate their findings in layman’s terms is higher than that required for observational study types. In addition, environmental & plant studies are usually published in less prestigious journals that probably do not issue press releases. Third, the studies may be less newsworthy because do not have a direct impact on human health. We have also acknowledged that the over-representation of observational study designs can distort the public’s perceived image of the microbiome, as those study design types are often inaccurately reported in newspapers and usually do not mention any associated caveats and limitations.
05 The limitations of the study by not including the impact of microbiome research in other media have been mentioned in the discussion. A short explanation of the methodological limitations using other types of media could underline the reason for the restricted methods with “only” six newspapers analyzed.
We are aware that we have not included any other mainstream media, social media or blogs in our analysis.
In response to your insightful comment, we have stated in the introduction that, although most people go online to search for information about scientific issues, newspaper content continues to dominate the online information repertoire over other media types.
Analyzing press citations has advantages over alternative metrics (known as altmetrics) for scientific publications in websites, blogs and social media. That is because the press is the main news producer and allows for reproducible tracking of newspaper articles on a specific topic within a defined period of time via the Factiva database, used in previous studies looking at the press coverage of biomedical research. That is not always possible for a content analysis of other types of media.
In addition, the selection of the sample of six newspapers responds to three patterns of reporting biomedical research in the press—USA, UK and Western World—described by the author Gonzalo Casino (Casino et al., 2017), which has also been acknowledged in the introduction. As such, our sample selection of newspapers might be seen as an indicator of how other newspapers from the same area of the world report microbiome research.
01 The visualization of filtering process in Fig.1 could be improved by highlighting the selected paths for analysis.
We agree with your suggestion for improving the visualization of the methodology used in our manuscript.
We have changed figure 1 of the manuscript and increased the width of the lines to highlight the selected paths that have been used in our data analyses.
Reviewer #2
01 For this reviewer it is completely unclear how the authors evaluated the media coverage of certain articles. As far as I interpreted the reported data, the authors have classified articles available on PubMed regarding study evidence. I would prefer to have a comparison between top quality RCTs regarding media coverage. What was the reason for reports in the media? This would support scientists in getting their research recognized by lay audience via media coverage.
In an initial step, we downloaded all news stories on the microbiome (excluding opinion-editorial articles) and read all of them individually to identify the study mentioned, based on the author’s name, the name of the journal or by accessing the provided link to the scientific publication. Then, we proceeded with classifying the study design of the microbiome papers mentioned in the press and used study designs published in PubMed between 2007 and 2019 as a comparison group.
Analysis of the impact of study designs in the press is an active area of research that has been applied in the context of biomedical news, as stated in the methods section. We have adapted the criteria used by Bartlett et al. and Lai and Lane for categorizing the study design in newspapers in the context of microbiome research (i.e., we have created a new category for environmental & plant studies due to the special relevance of this research in the microbiome field, according to Stulberg et al.). As a result, in our analysis of newspapers and PubMed, we have considered the 6 study design categories defined in our manuscript as follows: SRs of RCTs, RCTs, observational study types, animal or laboratory studies, environmental & plant studies, and other designs.
In line with the criteria used by Bartlett et al. and Lai and Lane, and given that previous work suggests that large RCTs that report hard outcomes (i.e. high-quality RCTs) usually attract the same press interest as low-quality RCTs, we have not focused solely on the press coverage of high-quality RCTs. However, our classification does differentiate between randomized controlled trials (high-quality RCTs) and intervention studies without randomization and/or without a control group (low-quality RCTs). The latter has been included in the “other designs” category, as stated in the methods section.
Study quality is evaluated after publication and such an analysis would have required a specific methodology (such as the GRADE system), which is outside the scope of this study.
In the methods section, we have clarified the method used for classifying all of the different study design types mentioned in microbiome news stories.
02 What was the difference between the three countries and did the authors evaluate reasons for the observed differences?
Thank you for acknowledging this point.
First of all, we have clarified in the methods section that the three countries (USA, UK and Spain) were selected as they were representative of three previously identified national patterns of biomedical reporting in the press (American, British and Western World).
We have stated in the results section that American newspapers showed a greater interest in microbiome research, followed by British newspapers and, lastly, Spanish newspapers. When it comes to study design, no major differences were found between countries, as shown in figure 3B. However, at an individual level, The New York Times showed an over-representation of SRs of RCTs in humans, while The Times over-represented RCTs compared to PubMed.
We have also evaluated in detail in the discussion the reasons behind the observed differences. American and British newspapers’ considerable interest in microbiome research compared to the Spanish press might reflect the USA and the UK’s longer and more far-reaching scientific tradition and that tradition’s dominant position in the scientific literature. Second, British and American newspapers also echo the top medical journals the most. Third, the over-representation of SRs of RCTs and RCTs in The New York Times and The Times, respectively, may be because the USA and the UK are the countries that produce the most Cochrane SRs and newspapers tend to report more on domestically produced science.
03 There should be a fact box included on game changers regarding media coverage of scientific data.
We agree with the fact that it is important to dedicate special attention in our manuscript to changes in the landscape of coverage of scientific data with the emergence of social media and blogs as news sources.
In the introduction section, we have devoted several paragraphs to discussing online content and social media as new players involved in how scientific data is covered by the media. We also discuss social media’s impact on how the lay public engages with science, but also as a means by which scientists can improve their citations in academic journals. Although the lay public uses the internet as the main source for keeping up-to-date with scientific issues, newspaper content still dominates the online information repertoire and social media are used by newspapers as a way of amplifying their own content.
04 Was the media coverage accompanied by better funding of research groups? This would be essential information that could enhance the impact of the reported data.
Thank you for your comment on the relationship between the funding of research and media coverage of scientific articles.
There is little data in the literature regarding whether media coverage of scientific articles is used by funding entities to assign money for research and this objective is outside the scope of our manuscript.
Competitive research funding devotes part of the budget to communication and dissemination activities, which means more visibility in the media for the research group and thus greater probability of obtaining funding. However, media coverage is only one of the factors that can improve the funding of research projects.
As explained in the discussion, although mentions of scholarly outputs in social media and news sites are increasingly included in policy papers and research calls, it is too early to consider whether they contribute to the awarding of research funding.
05 Additionally the authors only report regarding newspapers, which is not targeting the younger population. What about social media, online publications,..?
We are aware that we have not included social media and other online publications in our analysis.
In the updated version of our manuscript, we have stated in the introduction that even though most people go online to search for information about scientific issues, newspaper content still dominates the online information repertoire over other types of media. In addition, the social media platforms used by the younger population tend to get their information from digital newspaper content. As we are aware of the changing landscape in which traditional media is moving from print to digital platforms, we included in our analysis the digital version of the newspapers under study when they were included in the Factiva database.
06 In the current form, the data of the manuscript might be better reported in a letter to the editor.
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, but both authors consider that the results of this manuscript are original and novel and therefore are a better fit for the research article category. Furthermore, as far as we know, PLOS ONE does not include letters to the editor.
Minor comments
01 Fig. 1. Please specify what Op-Ed is.
Fig. 1 has been updated and includes the explanation of what Op-Ed is (i.e., opinion-editorial articles).
02 Please provide more information about SINC (country, city) and why this agency was chosen.
In the methods section (subsection “Newspaper coverage of microbiome research”), we have provided detailed information about SINC.
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter 1
22 Feb 2021
PONE-D-20-23472R1
Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: how many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In particular, please address the concerns raised by reviewer 3.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Yann Benetreau, Ph.D.
Senior Editor (Staff Editor), PLOS ONE
Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.
Additional Editor Comments (if provided):
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed
Reviewer #3: (No Response)
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
Reviewer #3: Partly
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #2: N/A
Reviewer #3: Yes
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
6. Review Comments to the Author
Reviewer #2: (No Response)
Reviewer #3: The second version of the paper addresses most of the comments made by the first round reviewers. Anyway, there are still some points that need to be considered before publication. They are the following:
a) applying the exclusion criteria proposed by the Authors, the news related to microbioma without an explicit reference to scientific papers remain out of the analysis. This is not a problem per se, but if the Authors claim to study the "social impact" of the microbioma's research the generic discourse about it in the newspapers is a relevant aspect. As a consequence, it cannot be completely ignored and if the Authors decide to leave this aspect outside the paper, it should be discussed, at least;
b) moreover, taking into account the above cited selection criteria, it is not surprising "the strong presence of research in the news stories about microbiome in the press". This result, indeed, mostly depends on precisely the application of such exclusion criteria;
c) it should be explained why the scientific papers most cited in the news have gained such a position. In other words, why these paper are more newsworthy than others?
d) the Authors listed three reasons for explaining “the remarkable under-representation of environmental & plant studies in the newspapers”. The last is that this kind of “studies may be less newsworthy because do not have a direct impact on human health”, but I wonder whether this can be actually the first and the most relevant.
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
Reviewer #3: No
Author response to Decision Letter 1
11 Mar 2021
Academic editor’s comments
Question 1: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.
Answer 1: The reference list of the manuscript has been reviewed in detail. It does not contain papers that have been retracted nor unavailable and unpublished work and personal communications.
All the references included in the manuscript as it stands now meet criteria specified in PLoS One submission guidelines ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references ).
Question 1 from reviewer 3: Applying the exclusion criteria proposed by the Authors, the news related to microbioma without an explicit reference to scientific papers remain out of the analysis. This is not a problem per se, but if the Authors claim to study the "social impact" of the microbioma's research the generic discourse about it in the newspapers is a relevant aspect. As a consequence, it cannot be completely ignored and if the Authors decide to leave this aspect outside the paper, it should be discussed, at least.
Answer question 1 from reviewer 3:
Thank you for acknowledging this point as this question needs to be discussed in depth.
For our first objective of quantifying the six newspapers’ interest in the microbiome, we focused both on news stories on the microbiome that cite at least one scientific paper (361/518=69.7%) and news stories on the microbiome that do not reference a scientific paper (157/518=30.3%), in relation to the total number of news stories that had the microbiome as the main topic. For the second objective of quantifying which microbiome study design made the news the most, we only focused on news stories that explicitly mentioned a scientific publication on the microbiome because we wanted to quantitatively compare that to PubMed publications.
News stories on the microbiome that did not reference a scientific paper can be addressed according to a qualitative methodology that explores several variables, including the topics addressed and the language used to discuss the latest scientific advances in microbiome research. However, this research objective is outside the scope of our manuscript. It should also be acknowledged that other authors have focused on studying news stories on the microbiome from the perspective of language and by using a qualitative methodology (Chuong KH et al. 2015; Nerlich & Hellsten, 2009; Nerlich, 2017).
We have re-written the first part on newspaper coverage of microbiome research in the methods section to better clarify our workflow and analysis. We are aware that excluding news stories that had the microbiome as the central topic but which did not reference a scientific paper is a limitation of our manuscript and have acknowledged this point in the discussion.
Question 2 from reviewer 3: Moreover, taking into account the above cited selection criteria, it is not surprising "the strong presence of research in the news stories about microbiome in the press". This result, indeed, mostly depends on precisely the application of such exclusion criteria.
Answer question 2 from reviewer 3:
Thank you for your comment.
The microbiome is a current hot topic for newspaper coverage and, in an initial step, we applied strict selection criteria to ensure that the news stories under analysis covered the microbiome as the central topic, in an in-depth and objective way.
If a news story mentioned the microbiome or any of its synonyms in a quote, for contextualizing a recipe or in the title of a book, we did not consider them to be relevant enough in terms of informing on the microbiome. Therefore, articles that mentioned the microbiome at some point but where the microbiome was not the focus—i.e. it was discussed in less than 50% of the text—were excluded from our analysis. This sampling process is known to eliminate news stories that contain tangential microbiome-related content (i.e., false positives) (Guasch et al., 2019).
In our first objective of quantifying the newspapers’ interest in the microbiome, we found that news stories on the microbiome that do not mention a scientific article represented a minority (30.3%), in relation to the total number of news stories that had the microbiome as the main topic. As we were interested in doing a controlled comparison between the scientific literature and newspapers, in our second objective, we ruled out news stories on the microbiome that did not mention a scientific paper in order to compare the same variable (mention of a scientific paper) in the six newspapers and in articles collected via PubMed.
We have acknowledged in the discussion the limitation of not considering all representations of the microbiome, regardless of whether they cite a scientific study, in the newspapers we analyzed.
Question 3 from reviewer 3: It should be explained why the scientific papers most cited in the news have gained such a position. In other words, why these paper are more newsworthy than others?
Answer question 3 from reviewer 3:
Thank you for your observation.
There is no one factor alone that can explain why some microbiome scientific articles are more newsworthy than others. In our analysis we have shown that study design could influence journalists’ selection of the scientific papers that will be echoed in newspapers. Beyond study design, our decision to focus on influential newspapers in terms of readership and circulation might explain the intense coverage of scientific findings in the press, as these newspapers have large science and medicine sections with specialist reporters. Other factors that might also be important include the impact factor of the journal, the availability of press releases, the domestic preference of newspapers for journals from their own country, and the newsworthiness of the topic.
We have clarified in the discussion which factors, beyond study design, may explain why some microbiome scientific papers are more newsworthy than others (lines 351-362). To date, different partial analyses have been done studying which factors shape how scientific and medical findings are echoed in newspapers, while in future an overall analysis could clarify which factors have the strongest weight in determining which microbiome scientific papers are finally echoed in the media.
Question 4 from reviewer 3: The Authors listed three reasons for explaining “the remarkable under-representation of environmental & plant studies in the newspapers”. The last is that this kind of “studies may be less newsworthy because do not have a direct impact on human health”, but I wonder whether this can be actually the first and the most relevant.
Answer question 4 from reviewer 4:
Thank you for encouraging us to reflect on this explanation for the under-representation of environmental & plant studies in the newspapers under analysis.
We agree on your point of view. Therefore, we have stated in the discussion that the fact that environmental & plant studies do not have a direct impact on human health might be the most relevant underlying factor in our findings and have placed it in first position on the list. Moreover, we have also cited the findings of two large population surveys that have shown that the topics of greatest interest to society are those of medicine and health, with scientific and technological discoveries and the environment and ecology generating far less interest (National Science Board, 2018; Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT), 2018).
Decision Letter 2
26 Mar 2021
PONE-D-20-23472R2
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
Federico Neresini
Guest Editor
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Acceptance letter
30 Mar 2021
Dear Dr. Prados-Bo:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Federico Neresini
- About the Journal
- Aims and Scope
- Editorial Policies
- Editorial Board
- Journal History
- Author Instructions
- Article Processing Charges
- Editorial Process
- Manuscript Templates
- Submit a Manuscript
- Peer Review Guidelines
- All Articles
- Articles with Video Abstracts
- Video Abstract Guidelines
- All Special Issues
- Ongoing Special Issues
- Special Issue Ebooks
- Special Issue Guidelines
Partner's Meeting
1. submission overview.
Before you decide to publish with us, please read the following items carefully and make sure that you are well aware of Editorial Policies and the following requirements.
1.1 Topic Suitability
The topic of the manuscript must fit the scope of the journal. Please refer to Aims and Scope for more information.
1.2 Open Access and Copyright
The journal adopts Gold Open Access publishing model and distributes content under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . Copyright is retained by authors. Please make sure that you are well aware of these policies.
1.3 Publication Fees
Microbiome Research Reports (MRR) is an open access journal. When a paper is accepted for publication, authors are required to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) to cover its editorial and production costs. The APC for each submission is $1500. There are no additional charges based on color, length, figures, or other elements. For more details, please refer to OAE Publication Fees .
1.4 Language Editing
All submissions are required to be presented clearly and cohesively in good English. Authors whose first language is not English are advised to have their manuscripts checked or edited by a native English speaker before submission to ensure the high quality of expression. A well-organized manuscript in good English would make the peer review even the whole editorial handling more smoothly and efficiently.
If needed, authors are recommended to consider the language editing services provided by OAE to ensure that the manuscript is written in correct scientific English before submission. An extra charge is required to enjoy this service. Please visit https://www.oaepublish.com/services or contact [email protected] for more details.
1.5 Work Funded by the National Institutes of Health
If an accepted manuscript was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH), the author may inform Editors of the NIH funding number. The Editors are able to deposit the paper to the NIH Manuscript Submission System on behalf of the author.
1.6 Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Please provide financial disclosure and any conflict of interest on the title page of manuscript.
2. Submission Preparation
2.1 cover letter.
A brief cover letter is required to be submitted accompanying each manuscript. It should be concise and explain why the study is significant, why it fits the scope of the journal, and why it would be attractive to readers, etc. Here is a guideline of a cover letter for authors' consideration: In the first paragraph: include the title and type (e.g., Original Article, Review, etc. ) of the manuscript, a brief on the background of the study, the question the author sought out to answer and why; In the second paragraph: concisely explain the main conclusions of your study; In the third paragraph: confirm that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere and not under consideration of any other journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agreed on its submission to the journal. Journal's specific requirements have been met if any. You may propose any expert reviewers to be considered by the Editors. If the manuscript is contributed to a Special Issue, please also mention it in the cover letter. If the manuscript was presented partly or entirely in a conference, the author should clearly state the background information of the event, including the conference name, time and place in the cover letter.
2.2 Types of Manuscripts
There is no general restriction on the number of figures, tables and references, provided that the manuscript is concise and comprehensive. The journal publishes Original Article, Review, Meta-Analysis, Commentary, etc. For more details about paper type, please refer to the following table.
| Manuscript Type | Definition | Word Limit | Abstract | Keywords | Main Text Structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original Article | An Original Article describes detailed results from novel research. All findings are extensively discussed. We also accept brief original articles not exceeding 2500 words incl. abstract and references (<10) and not exceeding a total of 3 figures/tables. | 5000 max | Structured abstract including Background or Objectives, Methods, Results and Conclusion. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | The main content should include four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. |
| Mini Review /Review | A Mini Review/Review article should provide readers with an in-depth understanding of a field by summarizing existing literature and highlighting key gaps and challenges to address future research. | 3500 max /no limitation | Unstructured abstract. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | The main text may consist of several sections with unfixed section titles. We suggest that the author include an "Introduction" section at the beginning, several sections with unfixed titles in the middle part, and a "Conclusion" section at the end. |
| Short Report | A Short report is suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished. | 2000 max | Structured abstract including Aim, Methods, Results and Conclusion. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | The main content should include four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. |
| Meta-Analysis | A Meta-Analysis is a statistical analysis combining the results of multiple scientific studies. It is often an overview of clinical trials. | 3000 max | Structured abstract including Background or Objectives, Methods, Results and Conclusion. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | The main content should include four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. |
| Systematic Review | A Systematic Review collects and critically analyzes multiple research studies, using methods selected before one or more research questions are formulated, and then finding and analyzing related studies and answering those questions in a structured methodology. | 3500 max | Structured abstract including Background or Objectives, Methods, Results and Conclusion. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | The main content should include four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. |
| Technical Note | A Technical Note is a short article giving a brief description of a specific development, technique or procedure, or it may describe a modification of an existing technique, procedure or device applied in research. | 2000 max | Unstructured abstract. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | |
| Commentary | A Commentary is to provide comments on a newly published article or an alternative viewpoint on a certain topic. Usually, comments are commissioned, but may also be sent spontaneously. | 2500 max | Unstructured abstract. No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | |
| Editorial | An Editorial is a short article describing news about the journal or opinions of senior Editors or the publisher. | 1200 max | None required. | None required | |
| Letter to Editor | A Letter to Editor is usually an open post-publication review of a paper from its readers, often critical of some aspect of a published paper. Controversial papers often attract numerous Letters to Editor. | 1500 max | Unstructured abstract (optional). No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords (optional) | |
| Opinion | An Opinion usually presents personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings on a topic. | 1500 max | Unstructured abstract (optional). No more than 250 words. | 3-8 keywords | |
| Perspective | A Perspective provides personal points of view on the state-of-the-art of a specific area of knowledge and its future prospects. Links to areas of intense current research focus can also be made. The emphasis should be on a personal assessment rather than a comprehensive, critical review. However, comments should be put into the context of existing literature. Perspectives are usually invited by the Editors. | 2000 max | Unstructured abstract. No more than 150 words. | 3-8 keywords | |
| Research Highlight | Research Highlights discuss the main advances made by the paper as well as putting the findings of the study into the proper context of the field. | 1,200 words max excluding references, figures, and tables. Table/Figure: Max of 1 | A brief stand first of only one or two sentences. | 3-6 Keywords |
2.3 Manuscript Structure
Trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and qualitative research should be described and reported according to standard guidelines, as presented by the Equator Initiative , such as CONSORT, STROBE or PRISMA guidelines.
2.3.1 Front Matter
2.3.1.1 title.
The title of the manuscript should be concise, specific and relevant, with no more than 16 words if possible. When gene or protein names are included, the abbreviated name rather than full name should be used.
2.3.1.2 Authors and Affiliations
Authors' full names should be listed. The initials of middle names can be provided. Institutional addresses and email addresses for all authors should be listed. At least one author should be designated as corresponding author. In addition, corresponding authors are suggested to provide their Open Researcher and Contributor ID upon submission. Please note that any change to authorship is not allowed after manuscript acceptance.
2.3.1.3 Abstract
Original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses require structured abstracts. The abstract should provide the context or background for the study and should state the study's purpose, basic procedures (selection of study participants, settings, measurements, analytical methods), main findings (giving specific effect sizes and their statistical and clinical significance, if possible), and principal conclusions. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations, note important limitations, and not overinterpret findings. Clinical trial abstracts should include items that the CONSORT group has identified as essential. It is not allowed to contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the manuscript, or exaggerate the main conclusions. Citations should not be included in the abstract.
2.3.1.4 Keywords
Three to eight MeSH keywords should be provided, which are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.
2.3.2 Main Text
Manuscripts of different types are structured with different sections of content. Please refer to Types of Manuscripts to make sure which sections should be included in the manuscripts. Please use correctly the terms "sex" (biological factors) and "gender" (identity and socio-cultural factors).
2.3.2.1 Introduction
Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance). State the specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation. Cite only directly pertinent references, and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.
2.3.2.2 Methods
The guiding principle of the Methods section should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. The Methods section should aim to be sufficiently detailed such that others with access to the data would be able to reproduce the results. In general, the section should include only information that was available at the time the plan or protocol for the study was being written; all information obtained during the study belongs in the Results section. If an organization was paid or otherwise contracted to help conduct the research (examples include data collection and management), then this should be detailed in the methods. The Methods section should include a statement indicating that the research was approved by an independent local, regional or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
2.3.2.2.1 Selection and Description of Participants
Clearly describe the selection of observational or experimental participants (healthy individuals or patients, including controls), including eligibility and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population. Because the relevance of such variables as age, sex, or ethnicity is not always known at the time of study design, researchers should aim for inclusion of representative populations into all study types and at a minimum provide descriptive data for these and other relevant demographic variables. Comment on how representative the study sample is of the larger population of interest.
Ensure correct use of the terms sex (when reporting biological factors) and gender (identity, psychosocial or cultural factors), and, unless inappropriate, report the sex and/or gender of study participants, the sex of animals or cells, and describe the methods used to determine sex and gender. If the study was done involving an exclusive population, for example in only one sex, authors should justify why. Authors should define how they determined race or ethnicity and justify their relevance. In the case where race or ethnicity was not collected, explain why it was not collected. Race and ethnicity are social and not biological constructs; authors should interpret results associated with race and ethnicity in that context. Authors should use neutral, precise, and respectful language to describe study participants and avoid the use of terminology that might stigmatize participants.
2.3.2.2.2 Technical Information
Specify the study's main and secondary objectives–usually identified as primary and secondary outcomes. Identify methods, equipment (give the manufacturer's name and address in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well-known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give the reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations. Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration. Identify appropriate scientific names and gene names.
2.3.2.2.3 Statistics
Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to judge its appropriateness for the study and to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates. References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated). Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the statistical software package(s) and versions used. Distinguish prespecified from exploratory analyses, including subgroup analyses.
2.3.2.3 Results
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and figures, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat all the data in the tables or figures in the text; emphasize or summarize only the most important observations. Provide data on all primary and secondary outcomes identified in the Methods Section. Extra or supplementary materials and technical details can be placed in an appendix where they will be accessible but will not interrupt the flow of the text, or they can be published solely in the electronic version of the journal.
Give numeric results not only as derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the derivatives were calculated. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess supporting data. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries; do not duplicate data in graphs and tables. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.”
Separate reporting of data by demographic variables, such as age and sex, facilitate pooling of data for subgroups across studies and should be routine, unless there are compelling reasons not to stratify reporting, which should be explained.
2.3.2.4 Discussion
It is useful to begin the discussion by briefly summarizing the main findings, and explore possible mechanisms or explanations for these findings. Emphasize the new and important aspects of your study and put your findings in the context of the totality of the relevant evidence. State any limitations of your study, and explore the implications of your findings for future research and for clinical practice or policy. Discuss the influence or association of variables, such as sex and/or gender, on your findings, where appropriate, and the limitations of the data. Do not repeat in detail data or other information given in other parts of the manuscript, such as in the Introduction or the Results section. Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not adequately supported by the data. In particular, distinguish between clinical and statistical significance, and avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless the manuscript includes the appropriate economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority or alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypotheses when warranted, but label them clearly.
2.3.2.5 Conclusion
It should state clearly the main conclusions that can be drawn from your data, and include the explanation of their relevance or importance to the field. Do not repeat results.
2.3.3 Back Matter
2.3.3.1 acknowledgements.
Anyone who contributed towards the article but does not meet the criteria for authorship, including those who provided professional writing services or materials, should be acknowledged. Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section. This section is not added if the author does not have anyone to acknowledge.
2.3.3.2 Authors' Contributions
Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the creation of new software used in the work, or have drafted the work or substantively revised it. Please use Surname and Initial of Forename to refer to an author's contribution. For example: made substantial contributions to conception and design of the study and performed data analysis and interpretation: Salas H, Castaneda WV; performed data acquisition, as well as provided administrative, technical, and material support: Castillo N, Young V. If an article is single-authored, please include "The author contributed solely to the article." in this section.
2.3.3.3 Availability of Data and Materials
In order to maintain the integrity, transparency and reproducibility of research records, authors should include this section in their manuscripts, detailing where the data supporting their findings can be found. Data can be deposited into data repositories or published as supplementary information in the journal. Authors who cannot share their data should state that the data will not be shared and explain it. If a manuscript does not involve such issue, please state "Not applicable." in this section.
2.3.3.4 Financial Support and Sponsorship
All sources of funding for the study reported should be declared. The role of the funding body in the experiment design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and writing of the manuscript should be declared. Any relevant grant numbers and the link of funder's website should be provided if any. If the study is not involved with this issue, state "None." in this section.
2.3.3.5 Conflicts of Interest
Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the representation or interpretation of reported research results. If there are no conflicts of interest, please state "All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest." in this section. Some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements. In such cases, in place of itemized disclosures, we will require authors to state "All authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their conflicts of interest in this work.". If authors are unsure whether conflicts of interest exist, please refer to the "Conflicts of Interest" of OAE Editorial Policies for a full explanation.
2.3.3.6 Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
Research involving human subjects, human material or human data must be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an appropriate ethics committee. An informed consent to participate in the study should also be obtained from participants, or their parents or legal guardians for children under 16. A statement detailing the name of the ethics committee (including the reference number where appropriate) and the informed consent obtained must appear in the manuscripts reporting such research. Studies involving animals and cell lines must include a statement on ethical approval. More information is available at Editorial Policies . If the manuscript does not involve such issue, please state "Not applicable." in this section.
2.3.3.7 Consent for Publication
Manuscripts containing individual details, images or videos, must obtain consent for publication from that person, or in the case of children, their parents or legal guardians. If the person has died, consent for publication must be obtained from the next of kin of the participant. Manuscripts must include a statement that a written informed consent for publication was obtained. Authors do not have to submit such content accompanying the manuscript. However, these documents must be available if requested. If the manuscript does not involve this issue, state "Not applicable." in this section.
2.3.3.8 Copyright
Authors retain copyright of their works through a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that clearly states how readers can copy, distribute, and use their attributed research, free of charge. A declaration "© The Author(s) 2024." will be added to each article. Authors are required to sign License to Publish before formal publication.
2.3.3.9 References
References should be numbered in order of appearance at the end of manuscripts. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets and the corresponding references are cited thereafter. If the number of authors is less than or equal to six, we require to list all authors' names. If the number of authors is more than six, only the first three authors' names are required to be listed in the references, other authors' names should be omitted and replaced with "et al.". Abbreviations of the journals should be provided on the basis of Index Medicus . Information from manuscripts accepted but not published should be cited in the text as "Unpublished material" with written permission from the source. References should be described as follows, depending on the types of works:
| Types | Examples |
|---|---|
| Journal articles by individual authors | Weaver DL, Ashikaga T, Krag DN, et al. Effect of occult metastases on survival in node-negative breast cancer. . 2011;364:412-21. [PMID: 21247310 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008108] |
| Organization as author | Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Hypertension, insulin, and proinsulin in participants with impaired glucose tolerance. 2002;40:679-86. [PMID: 12411462] |
| Both personal authors and organization as author | Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ; Alf-One Study Group. Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms. . 2003;169:2257-61. [PMID: 12771764 DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73] |
| Journal articles not in English | Zhang X, Xiong H, Ji TY, Zhang YH, Wang Y. Case report of anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis in child. . 2012;27:1903-7. (in Chinese) |
| Journal articles ahead of print | Odibo AO. Falling stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates in twin gestation: not a reason for complacency. . 2018; Epub ahead of print [PMID: 30461178 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15541] |
| Books | Sherlock S, Dooley J. Diseases of the liver and billiary system. 9th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Sci Pub; 1993. pp. 258-96. |
| Book chapters | Meltzer PS, Kallioniemi A, Trent JM. Chromosome alterations in human solid tumors. In: Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, Editors. The genetic basis of human cancer. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002. pp. 93-113. |
| Online resource | FDA News Release. FDA approval brings first gene therapy to the United States. Available from: . [Last accessed on 30 Oct 2017] |
| Conference proceedings | Harnden P, Joffe JK, Jones WG, Editors. Germ cell tumours V. Proceedings of the 5th Germ Cell Tumour Conference; 2001 Sep 13-15; Leeds, UK. New York: Springer; 2002. |
| Conference paper | Christensen S, Oppacher F. An analysis of Koza's computational effort statistic for genetic programming. In: Foster JA, Lutton E, Miller J, Ryan C, Tettamanzi AG, Editors. Genetic programming. EuroGP 2002: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Genetic Programming; 2002 Apr 3-5; Kinsdale, Ireland. Berlin: Springer; 2002. pp. 182-91. |
| Unpublished material | Tian D, Araki H, Stahl E, Bergelson J, Kreitman M. Signature of balancing selection in Arabidopsis. . Forthcoming 2002. |
| Thesis or dissertation | Cable ML. Life in extreme environments: lanthanide-based detection of bacterial spores and other sensor design pursuits. Ph.D. Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 2010. Available from [accessed 29 December 2023]. |
| Thesis or dissertation in print | Enander RT. Lead particulate and methylene chloride risks in automotive refinishing. Ph.D. Thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 2001. |
| Website | World Health Organization Home Page. Available from [accessed 29 December 2023]. |
| Newspaper | Beauge J. School district sued over burns girl suffered during chemistry class demonstration. ( ), November 17, 2018, updated November 17, 2018. Available from [accessed 29 December 2023]. |
| Database | SpectraBase. Bio-Rad Laboratories. Available from [accessed 29 December 2023]. |
| Patent | Stern MK, Cheng BKM. Process for preparing N-(p-nitroaryl)amides via reaction of nitrobenzene with nitriles. US 5380946, 1995. |
| Preprint | Yamamoto TS, Inui R, Tada Y, Yokoyama S. Prospects of detection of subsolar mass primordial black hole and white dwarf binary mergers. 2004;arXiv:2401.00044. Available from [accessed 29 December 2023]. |
For other types of references, please refer to U.S. National Library of Medicine . The journal also recommends that authors prepare references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references.
2.3.3.10 Supplementary Materials
Additional data and information can be uploaded as Supplementary Materials to accompany the manuscripts. The supplementary materials will also be available to the referees as part of the peer-review process. Any file format is acceptable, such as data sheet (word, excel, csv, cdx, fasta, pdf or zip files), presentation (powerpoint, pdf or zip files), image (cdx, eps, jpeg, pdf, png or tiff), table (word, excel, csv or pdf), audio (mp3, wav or wma) or video (avi, divx, flv, mov, mp4, mpeg, mpg or wmv). All information should be clearly presented. Supplementary materials should be cited in the main text in numeric order (e.g., Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Figure 2, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Table 2, etc .). The style of supplementary figures or tables complies with the same requirements on figures or tables in main text. Videos and audios should be prepared in English, and limited to a size of 500 MB.
2.4 Manuscript Format
2.4.1 file format.
Manuscript files can be in DOC and DOCX formats and should not be locked or protected.
2.4.2 Length
The word limit is specified in the item "Types of Manuscripts". While there are no general restrictions on number of figures or amount of supporting documents, figures and tables should be kept to a minimum. Authors are encouraged to present and discuss their findings concisely without repeating data in detail in the text body which has been presented in figures and tables.
2.4.3 Language
Manuscripts must be written in English.
2.4.4 Multimedia Files
- The journal supports manuscripts with multimedia files. The requirements are listed as follows:
- Video or audio files are only acceptable in English. The presentation and introduction should be easy to understand. The frames should be clear, and the speech speed should be moderate.
- A brief overview of the video or audio files should be given in the manuscript text.
- The video or audio files should be limited to a size of up to 500 MB.
- Please use professional software to produce high-quality video files, to facilitate acceptance and publication along with the submitted article. Upload the videos in mp4, wmv, or rm format (preferably mp4) and audio files in mp3 or wav format.
2.4.5 Figures
- Figures should be cited in numeric order (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2) and placed after the paragraph where it is first cited;
- Figures can be submitted in format of tiff, psd, AI or jpeg, with resolution of 300-600 dpi;
- Figure caption is placed under the Figure;
- Diagrams with describing words (including, flow chart, coordinate diagram, bar chart, line chart, and scatter diagram, etc .) should be editable in word, excel or powerpoint format. Non-English information should be avoided;
- Labels, numbers, letters, arrows, and symbols in figure should be clear, of uniform size, and contrast with the background;
- Symbols, arrows, numbers, or letters used to identify parts of the illustrations must be identified and explained in the legend;
- Internal scale (magnification) should be explained and the staining method in photomicrographs should be identified;
- All non-standard abbreviations should be explained in the legend;
- Permission for use of copyrighted materials from other sources, including re-published, adapted, modified, or partial figures and images from the internet, must be obtained. It is authors’ responsibility to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instruction requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.
2.4.6 Tables
- Tables should be cited in numeric order and placed after the paragraph where it is first cited;
- The table caption should be placed above the table and labeled sequentially (e.g., Table 1, Table 2);
- Tables should be provided in editable form like DOC or DOCX format (picture is not allowed);
- Abbreviations and symbols used in table should be explained in footnote;
- Explanatory matter should also be placed in footnotes;
- Permission for use of copyrighted materials from other sources, including re-published, adapted, modified, or partial tables from the internet, must be obtained. It is authors' responsibility to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instruction requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.
2.4.7 Abbreviations
Abbreviations should be defined upon first appearance in the abstract, main text, and in figure or table captions and used consistently thereafter. Non-standard abbreviations are not allowed unless they appear at least three times in the text. Commonly-used abbreviations, such as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc ., can be used directly without definition. Abbreviations in titles and keywords should be avoided, except for the ones which are widely used.
2.4.8 Italics
General italic words like vs ., et al ., etc ., in vivo , in vitro ; t test, F test, U test; related coefficient as r , sample number as n , and probability as P ; names of genes; names of bacteria and biology species in Latin.
2.4.9 Units
SI Units should be used. Imperial, US customary and other units should be converted to SI units whenever possible. There is a space between the number and the unit (i.e., 23 mL). Hour, minute, second should be written as h, min, s.
2.4.10 Numbers
Numbers appearing at the beginning of sentences should be expressed in English. When there are two or more numbers in a paragraph, they should be expressed as Arabic numerals; when there is only one number in a paragraph, number < 10 should be expressed in English and number > 10 should be expressed as Arabic numerals. 12345678 should be written as 12,345,678.
2.4.11 Equations
Equations should be editable and not appear in a picture format. Authors are advised to use either the Microsoft Equation Editor or the MathType for display and inline equations.
2.5 Submission Link
Submit an article via https://oaemesas.com/login?JournalId=mrr .
3. Research and Publication Ethics
3.1 research involving human subjects.
All studies involving human subjects must be in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and seek approval to conduct the study from an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board, etc. ). Such approval, including the names of the ethics committee, institutional review board, etc. , must be listed in a declaration statement of Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate in the manuscript. If the study is judged exempt from ethics approval, related information (e.g., name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reason for the exemption) must be listed. Further documentation on ethics should also be prepared, as Editors may request more detailed information. Manuscripts with suspected ethical problems will be investigated according to COPE Guidelines .
3.1.1 Consent to Participate
For all studies involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the studies must be obtained from participants, or their parents or legal guardians for children under 16. Whenever possible, consent should be written. Statements regarding consent to participate should be included in a declaration statement of Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate in the manuscript. If informed consent is not required, the name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reason for the exemption must be listed. If any ethical violation is found at any stage of publication, the issue will be investigated seriously based on COPE Guidelines .
3.1.2 Consent for Publication
All articles published by OAE are freely available on the Internet. All manuscripts that include individual participants' data in any form (i.e., details, images, videos, etc. ) will not be published without Consent for Publication obtained from that person(s), or for children, their parents or legal guardians. If the person has died, Consent for Publication must be obtained from the next of kin. Authors must add a declaration statement of Consent for Publication in the manuscript, specifying written informed consent for publication has been obtained.
3.1.3 Ethical Approval and Informed Consent for Retrospective/Database Studies
Researchers must confirm they have obtained ethical approval from ethical review boards to perform the study, as well as permission from the dataset owner to use the information in databases for the purposes of the research they are performing. If permission to use information from a database is not required (e.g., it is publicly available and unrestricted re-use is permitted under an open license), a statement explaining this must be included in the manuscript. For studies which ethics approval has been waived, authors must state clearly in the manuscript and provide brief details of the waive policy. The statement should include details of the policies under which the waive was granted.
Authors must keep data anonymized. If participants’ details are not to be anonymized, authors must ensure that written informed consent, including consent for publication, was obtained from each participant, and consent statement must be included in the manuscript.
3.1.4 Ethical Approval and Informed Consent for Survey Studies
Researchers must ensure the participant’s right to confidentiality has been considered, and they must inform all participants about the aims of the research and if there are any possible risks, and how the collecting data is being stored. The voluntary consent to participate of participants should be recorded and any legal requirements on data protection should be adhered to. Same with all research studies, ethics approval from IRB/local ethics committee for survey studies must be obtained before performing study. If ethics approval for certain survey study is not required, authors must include a statement to explain this clearly in the manuscript.
3.1.5 Trial Registration
OAE requires all authors to register all relevant clinical trials that are reported in manuscripts submitted. OAE follows the World Health Organization (WHO) 's definition of clinical trials: "A clinical trial is any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes. Interventions include but are not restricted to drugs, cells, other biological products, surgical procedures, radiologic procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, process-of-care changes, preventive care, etc .".
In line with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendation, OAE requires the registration of clinical trials in a public trial registry at or before the time of first patient enrollment. OAE accepts publicly accessible registration in any registry that is a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform or in ClinicalTrials.gov . The trial registration number should be listed at the end of the Abstract section.
Secondary data analyses of primary (parent) clinical trials should not be registered as a new clinical trial, but rather reference the trial registration number of the primary trial.
Editors of OAE journals will consider carefully whether studies failed to register or had an incomplete trial registration. Because of the importance of prospective trial registration, if there is an exception to this policy, trials must be registered and the authors should indicate in the publication when registration was completed and why it was delayed. Editors will publish a statement indicating why an exception was allowed. Please note such exceptions should be rare, and authors failing to prospectively register a trial risk its inadmissibility to OAE journals.
3.2 Research Involving Animals
Experimental research on animals should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee and must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. OAE encourages authors to comply with the AALAS Guidelines , the ARRIVE Guidelines , and/or the ICLAS Guidelines , and obtain prior approval from the relevant ethics committee. Manuscripts must include a statement indicating that the study has been approved by the relevant ethical committee and the whole research process complies with ethical guidelines. If a study is granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, the name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reason(s) for the exemption should be detailed. Editors will take account of animal welfare issues and reserve the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research.
3.3 Research Involving Cell Lines
Authors must describe what cell lines are used and their origin so that the research can be reproduced. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated and references must also be given to either a published paper or to a commercial source. For de novo cell lines derived from human tissue, appropriate approval from an institutional review board or equivalent ethical committee, and consent from the donor or next of kin, should be obtained. Such statements should be listed on the Declaration section of Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate in the manuscript.
Further information is available from the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) . OAE recommends that authors check the NCBI database for misidentification and contamination of human cell lines.
3.4 Research Involving Plants
Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Field studies should be conducted in accordance with local legislation, and the manuscript should include a statement specifying the appropriate permissions and/or licenses. OAE recommends that authors comply with the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora .
For each submitted manuscript, supporting genetic information and origin must be provided for plants that were utilized. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oriza sativa, or many other typical model plants), voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collections providing access to deposited materials.
3.5 Publication Ethics Statement
OAE is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We fully adhere to its Code of Conduct and to its Best Practice Guidelines.
The Editors of this journal enforce a rigorous peer-review process together with strict ethical policies and standards to guarantee to add high-quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. The Editors of MRR take such publishing ethics issues very seriously and are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy.
- The author(s) must disclose any possibility of a conflict of interest in the paper prior to submission.
- The authors should declare that there is no academic misconduct in their manuscript in the cover letter.
- Authors should accurately present their research findings and include an objective discussion of the significance of their findings.
- Data and methods used in the research need to be presented in sufficient detail in the manuscript so that other researchers can replicate the work.
- Authors should provide raw data if referees and the Editors of the journal request.
- Simultaneous submission of manuscripts to more than one journal is not tolerated.
- Republishing content that is not novel is not tolerated (for example, an English translation of a paper that is already published in another language will not be accepted).
- The manuscript should not contain any information that has already been published. If you include already published figures or images, please get the necessary permission from the copyright holder to publish under the CC-BY license.
- Plagiarism, data fabrication and image manipulation are not tolerated.
- Plagiarism is not acceptable in OAE journals.
Plagiarism involves the inclusion of large sections of unaltered or minimally altered text from an existing source without appropriate and unambiguous attribution, and/or an attempt to misattribute original authorship regarding ideas or results, and copying text, images, or data from another source, even from your own publications, without giving credit to the source.
As to reusing the text that is copied from another source, it must be between quotation marks and the source must be cited. If a study's design or the manuscript's structure or language has been inspired by previous studies, these studies must be cited explicitly.
If plagiarism is detected during the peer-review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may publish a Correction or retract the paper.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results so that the findings are not accurately represented in the research record.
Image files must not be manipulated or adjusted in any way that could lead to misinterpretation of the information provided by the original image.
Irregular manipulation includes: introduction, enhancement, moving, or removing features from the original image; grouping of images that should be presented separately, or modifying the contrast, brightness, or color balance to obscure, eliminate, or enhance some information.
If irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed during the peer-review process, we may reject the manuscript. If irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed after publication, we may publish a Correction or retract the paper.
OAE reserves the right to contact the authors' institution(s) to investigate possible publication misconduct if the Editors find conclusive evidence of misconduct before or after publication. OAE has a partnership with iThenticate , which is the most trusted similarity checker. It is used to analyze received manuscripts to avoid plagiarism to the greatest extent possible. When plagiarism becomes evident after publication, we will retract the original publication or require modifications, depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article, and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study. Journal Editors will act under the relevant COPE Guidelines .
4. Authorship
Authorship credit of OAE journals should be solely based on substantial contributions to a published study, as specified in the following four criteria: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3. Final approval of the version to be published; 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All those who meet these criteria should be identified as authors. Authors must specify their contributions in the section Authors' Contributions of their manuscripts. Contributors who do not meet all the four criteria (like only involved in acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group, general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, proofreading, etc. ) should be acknowledged in the section of Acknowledgement in the manuscript rather than being listed as authors.
If a large multiple-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be authors before the work starts and confirm authors before submission. All authors of the group named as authors must meet all the four criteria for authorship. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as an author or co-author.
5. Reviewers Exclusions
You may exclude a maximum of three researchers as potential Editors or reviewers of your manuscript, if you believe that there may be any conflict of interest. To ensure a fair and rigorous peer review process, we ask that you keep your exclusions to a maximum of three people. If you wish to exclude additional referees, please explain or justify your concerns—this information will be helpful for Editors when deciding whether to honor your request.
6. Editors and Journal Staff as Authors
Editorial independence is extremely important and OAE does not interfere with editorial decisions. Editorial staff or Editors shall not be involved in the processing their own academic work. Submissions authored by editorial staff/Editors will be assigned to at least three independent outside reviewers. Decisions will be made by other Editorial Board members who do not have conflict of interests with the author. Journal staffs are not involved in the processing of their own work submitted to any OAE journals.
7. Policy of the Use of AI and AI-assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing
Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (e.g., large language models) are expected to be increasingly used to create content. In the writing process of manuscripts, using AI and AI-assisted technologies to complete key researcher work, such as producing scientific insights, analyzing and interpreting data or drawing scientific conclusions, is not allowed, and they should only be used to improve the readability and language of manuscripts.
AI and AI-assisted technologies should be used under human control and supervision as they may generate incorrect or prejudiced output, and they should not be listed as an author or co-author, nor cited as an author.
The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies should be disclosed by authors in their manuscripts, and a statement will be required in the final publication.
OAE will keep monitoring the development and adjust the policy when necessary.
8. Conflict of Interests
OAE journals require authors to declare any possible financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interest at the end of their manuscript and in the cover letter, as well as confirm this point when submitting their manuscript in the submission system. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors need to state "The authors declare no conflicts of interest". We also recognize that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements, in which cases authors need to sate "The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their competing interests in this work".
9. Editorial Process
9.1 initial check, 9.1.1 initial manuscript check.
Our in-house editorial team will ensure that you have uploaded all necessary files in usable format and that you have provided all the information we require. If your manuscript does not meet one or more of these requirements, we will return it for further revisions.
9.1.2 Publishing ethics
All manuscripts submitted to MRR are screened using iThenticate powered by CrossCheck to identify any plagiarized content. Your study must also meet all ethical requirements as outlined in our Editorial Policies. If the manuscript does not pass any of these checks, we may return it to you for further revisions or decline to consider your study for publication.
9.2 Editorial assessment
Once it has passed the initial checks, our editorial team will assign your manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief will assign it to an Editorial Board member with relevant expertise, who will be responsible for managing the peer-review process. Editor-in-Chief, as well as the Editorial Board members, may reject manuscripts that they deem highly unlikely to pass peer review without further consultation.
9.3 Process
MRR operates a single-blind review process. The technical quality of the research described in the manuscript is assessed by a minimum of three independent expert reviewers. The Academic Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. For controversial manuscripts, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision.
9.4 Decisions
Your research will be judged on technical soundness only, not on its perceived impact as judged by Editors or referees. There are three possible decisions: Accept (your study satisfies all publication criteria), Invitation to Revise (more work is required to satisfy all criteria), and Reject (your study fails to satisfy key criteria and it is highly unlikely that further work can address its shortcomings).
10. Contact Us
Managing editor.
Los Angeles Office 245 E Main Street, ste122, Alabama, CA 91801, USA Tel: +1 323 9987086 Xi'an Office Suite 1504, Plaza A, Xi'an National Digital Publishing Base, No. 996 Tiangu 7th Road, Gaoxin District, Xi'an 710077, Shaanxi, China Tel: +86 (0)29 8954 0089
Last updated on 3 September, 2024
All published articles are preserved here permanently:
The current browser is not compatible
The following browsers are recommended for the best use experience
Only supports Mac
Circadian disruption, gut microbiome changes linked to colorectal cancer progression
Findings by UC Irvine researchers may lead to new prevention, treatment strategies
Irvine, Calif., Sept. 27, 2024 — Research from the University of California, Irvine has revealed how disruption of the circadian clock, the body’s internal, 24-hour biological pacemaker, may accelerate the progression of colorectal cancer by affecting the gut microbiome and intestinal barrier function. This discovery offers new avenues for prevention and treatment strategies.
The study, published online today in the journal Science Advances , offers a more comprehensive understanding of how important changes occur in the function and composition of the gut microbiome when the circadian clock is disturbed in the presence of colorectal cancer.
“There is an alarming rise in early-onset colorectal cancer in adults under the age of 50,” said corresponding author Selma Masri, associate professor of biological chemistry. “Circadian misalignment through extended light exposure, late-night meals and other environmental factors could [be] driving these cases. Our study suggests that clock disruption, particularly through lifestyle choices, may play a significant role in gut health and, subsequently, cancer risk.”
Previous research has shown that disturbances to the circadian clock can influence the progression of colorectal cancer, but until now, how the biological clock and cancer impact the gut microbiome was unclear. Using colorectal cancer mouse models, the team found that when the circadian clock is disrupted, the diversity and abundance of gut bacteria change, and this is further exacerbated by cancer development.
Researchers also identified notable alterations in the microbial pathways involved in the metabolism of nucleic acids, amino acids and carbohydrates. These functional changes were linked to reduced levels of intestinal mucus, which normally protects the gut lining from harmful bacteria, suggesting that the circadian clock is crucial for maintaining barrier integrity. Increased permeability of the intestinal lining allows toxins and bacteria to enter the bloodstream, potentially accelerating cancer progression.
“While these findings are important, more work needs to be done,” Masri said. “In particular, we now want to know if changes in the timing and abundance of certain gut bacteria could directly lead to colorectal cancer development over time. Long-term studies will be critical in determining whether circadian misalignment drives cancer and how we might prevent it in the future. Deeper insights into how the body’s internal clock shapes the gut’s ecosystem could pave the way for treatments that not only address cancer but also improve overall gut health.”
The study was led by Rachel Fellows, a postdoctoral fellow in biological chemistry. Other team members included Assistant Professors Marcus M. Seldin and Nicholas R. Pannunzio; postdoctoral fellow Sung Kook Chun; graduate students Alisa L. Mahieu, Bridget Fortin and Wei A. Song; and associate specialist Natalie Larson – all from the School of Medicine’s Department of Biological Chemistry.
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Concern Foundation and Johnson & Johnson, among others. See the study for a full list.
About UC Irvine’s Brilliant Future campaign: Publicly launched on Oct. 4, 2019, the Brilliant Future campaign aims to raise awareness and support for UC Irvine. By engaging 75,000 alumni and garnering $2 billion in philanthropic investment, UC Irvine seeks to reach new heights of excellence in student success, health and wellness, research and more. The School of Medicine plays a vital role in the success of the campaign. Learn more by visiting https://brilliantfuture.uci.edu/uci-school-of-medicine .
About the University of California, Irvine: Founded in 1965, UC Irvine is a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities and is ranked among the nation’s top 10 public universities by U.S. News & World Report . The campus has produced five Nobel laureates and is known for its academic achievement, premier research, innovation and anteater mascot. Led by Chancellor Howard Gillman, UC Irvine has more than 36,000 students and offers 224 degree programs. It’s located in one of the world’s safest and most economically vibrant communities and is Orange County’s second-largest employer, contributing $7 billion annually to the local economy and $8 billion statewide. For more on UC Irvine, visit www.uci.edu .
Media access: Radio programs/stations may, for a fee, use an on-campus studio with a Comrex IP audio codec to interview UC Irvine faculty and experts, subject to availability and university approval. For more UC Irvine news, visit news.uci.edu . Additional resources for journalists may be found at https://news.uci.edu/media-resources .
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
- Open access
- Published: 27 September 2024
Analyzing the configuration of the National Innovation System for Innovation Capability: evidence from Global Innovation Index reports
- Yangjie Huang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6459-220X 1 , 2 ,
- Sihui Li 1 , 3 ,
- Xiyuan Xiang 1 &
- Leilei Huang 2
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 11 , Article number: 1266 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
- Social policy
National innovation capability (NIC) is an important manifestation of economic development quality and international competitiveness. Previous studies focus mainly on the static impact of factors in the national innovation system on NIC in a given year. Research is still lacking on whether these factors have continuing, stable impacts on NIC in different economies. To fill this literature gap, this study uses fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to conduct cross-economy and cross-year comparisons and discusses how the five elements of the NIS jointly affected the NIC of different economies from 2011 to 2022. The results indicate that the necessity consistency of infrastructure for NIC shows a temporal trend. There are four paths to generating high NIC in high-income economies, but only two such paths for upper middle-income economies. The path combining human capital and research, market sophistication, and business sophistication can drive both types of economies to generate high NIC. The research results have improved the transparency of innovation paths and provided a reference for different economies to achieve sustainable development.
Introduction
Innovation is the reorganization of existing ideas or the application of new ideas to new processes and products, which has received widespread attention from researchers (Matos et al., 2022 ). Successful economic development is closely related to a country’s ability to acquire, absorb, disseminate, and apply modern technology, as reflected in its national innovation system (NIS) (Metcalfe and Ramlogan, 2008 ; Kim and Lee, 2022 ). In the NIS conceptual framework (Freeman, 1987 ), government and institutional structures promote the generation and diffusion of innovation in coordinating the national economy (Watkins et al., 2015 ; Ulmanen and Bergek, 2021 ). The NIS encompasses all economic, political, and social factors affecting national innovation. The NIS can enhance environmental sustainability and play a decisive role in globally coordinated efforts to create a sustainable future (Fernandes et al., 2022 ). Countries that have successfully integrated these innovative factors perform well and achieve greater economic prosperity (Kwon and Motohashi, 2017 ; Khan, 2022 ). Within the NIS is a group of institutions jointly and individually dedicated to developing and disseminating new technologies (Metcalfe, 1995 ). In other words, the NIS depends on not only the roles of individual institutions but also how internal system factors interact (Calia et al., 2007 ). Therefore, in the innovation process, the connection between internal elements of the NIS is key to improving a country’s innovation capability.
Scholars have extensively researched national innovation capability (NIC) from the perspective of the NIS and analyzed the conditional configurations that lead to high NIC (Khedhaouria and Thurik, 2017 ). However, there has been no in-depth discussion of which specific configurations can stably generate high NIC. First, NIC research has not been integrated (Fagerberg and Srholec, 2008 ). Some studies cover only the conditions considered to affect innovation (Khayyat and Lee, 2015 ), and may thus overlook other potential influencing factors and the interactions between them. However, the NIS is systematic and evolutionary (Lundvall et al., 2002 ), and scattered literature is not conducive to researchers and managers fully understanding national-level innovation activities. Second, research on the configuration of conditions for NIC has used cross-sectional data, analyzing the innovation paths of different countries in a given year (Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ; Huarng and Yu, 2022 ). Although these studies adopted a systematic perspective, cross-sectional data cannot fully explain the temporal differences in NIC and the continuity of configurations. In other words, whether the innovation paths of different economies have evolved over time remains to be determined. Accordingly, this study tackles the following research questions:
RQ1: Do the five elements of the NIS individually affect a country’s NIC? How does the combination of factors affect the NIC of high- and upper middle-income economies? Specifically, which paths generate high NIC?
RQ2: Do these paths have time- or cross-sectional effects? Are they stable?
RQ3: Are there configurations that can simultaneously drive both economies to generate high NIC?
Cross-border comparisons based on the NIS, especially analyzing non-highly industrialized countries, are a trend in NIS research (Balzat and Hanusch, 2004 ). This study analyzes the individual and combined influence of NIS elements on NIC in high- and upper-middle-income economies and explores whether the configuration of high NIC has temporal and spatial effects. High-income economies are the focus of most theoretical and empirical analyses of the NIS (Edquist, 2001 ; Khan, 2022 ), and analyzing the innovative development path of high-income economies can help other economies learn from their successful practices. Upper middle-income economies include many emerging economies that have shown great potential and growth momentum in innovation activities (WIPO, 2022 ). In addition, NIS theoretical research has gradually expanded its focus to include “imitation” and “learning” activities in middle-income economies (Casadella and Uzunidis, 2017 ; Hu et al., 2017 ). Studying the current status of NIC in upper middle-income economies is conducive to promoting global innovation development. High-income and upper middle-income economies play important roles in global innovation. Therefore, analyzing and comparing their innovation paths can support international cooperation and knowledge exchange, promote innovation path sharing, and advance global innovation progress.
This study explores how five elements of the NIS (institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication) affect the NIC of high- and upper middle-income economies and the stability of their influence over time. This study has significant theoretical contributions. Firstly, this study improves the transparency and replicability of innovation paths in different economies by analyzing the time effects of NIS factors on the necessity and combination effects of NIC and broadens the research perspective of NIS-related theories. Furthermore, this study incorporates temporality into the fsQCA method, revealing the stable allocation of NIS elements, characterizing the evolution trend of the global innovation landscape, and providing robust data support for various economies to adjust innovation strategies. The findings suggest that high- and upper middle-income economies should prioritize the role of infrastructure in NIC. Additionally, a configuration perspective should be applied to integrate NIS elements and thereby enhance NIC, focusing especially on the interaction between human capital and research (HCR), market sophistication (MS), and business sophistication (BS). Overall, the research findings provide key insights for decision-makers in countries with different economic levels to adjust innovation policies and integrate innovation resources, especially those committed to improving NIC and global competitiveness.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews literature on the NIS, its constituent elements, and NIC. Next, we detail the research methodology, then report the results of using fsQCA with panel data from the Global Innovation Index (GII) Report, 2011–2022, to explore what combinations of NIS elements produce high NIC. Finally, we explore the study’s theoretical and practical significance, analyze its limitations, and propose future research directions.
Literature review
Innovation can drive economic growth, technological progress, and global competitiveness. We take the NIS as our theoretical framework and believe that its internal institutions influence the growth of NIC. First, we review research on the NIS and NIC. Second, we consider the five innovative elements outlined by the GII Report as the framework for evaluating the institutional structure of the NIS.
National Innovation System (NIS)
The NIS was developed by Freeman as a conceptual framework positing that innovation activities are not just the work of enterprises or individuals (Freeman, 1987 ). Governments and institutional structures play crucial roles in coordinating innovation activities within a national economy (Watkins et al., 2015 ; Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ). Important research findings on the NIS are as follows. First, within the NIS, a country’s key organizational structures and systems interact, with the core activities being the co-creation, storage, and transmission of new knowledge and technology (Alcorta and Peres, 1998 ; Erzurumlu et al., 2022 ), thereby upgrading NIC (Numminen, 1996 ; Jankowska et al., 2017 ). Second, the growth of knowledge and technology in the NIS comes mainly from intangible national investments in education, infrastructure, technology research and development, business connections, and other domains (Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ). Third, government policies are responsible for coordinating the cooperation of various institutional structures in the NIS (Prokop et al., 2021 ). Fourth, economic globalization has gradually blurred the boundaries of innovation activities, increasing the mobility of knowledge in various fields and regions, and thus providing opportunities for developing countries to catch up. Therefore, developing countries should observe and learn from the NIS institutional structure of high NIC countries (Rakas and Hain, 2019 ; Lee et al., 2021 ; Khan, 2022 ). The NIS has become a popular theoretical framework for describing how interactions between economic participants generate technological innovation and economic growth (Fernandes et al., 2022 ). This study investigates how the interaction between NIS internal factors impacts NIC in high-income and upper middle-income economies.
National Innovation Capability (NIC)
Based on the above conceptual framework, this study regards NIC as the ability of various actors and institutions within a country to interact, engage in innovative activities, produce innovative technologies, and promote national economic development. Existing research uses the NIS as a theoretical framework for discussing the NIC of different economies (Acs et al., 2017 ; Kashani and Roshani, 2019 ). Scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the framework of NIS elements, as different economies have specific economic foundations and innovative institutional structures. The biggest challenge in enhancing NIC is determining how the government can reasonably allocate the internal institutional structure of the NIS (Freeman, 1987 ; Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ). Meanwhile, since innovation is a dynamic evolutionary process, analysis of a country’s allocation methods of NIS elements needs to consider time effects (Erzurumlu et al., 2022 ). Therefore, this study incorporates time effects into the analysis and explores the configurations of NIS factors in economies of different income levels from 2011 to 2022, as well as the ways in which these factors affect NIC.
NIS elements
The GII Report provides an important reference for evaluating the NIS institutional framework and measuring NIC. The index was jointly developed in 2007 by INSEAD Business School, Cornell University, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It comprises five innovation input indicators—institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication—and ranks countries based on the average of each indicator of innovation input and output (WIPO, 2022 ). The GII has been used to study the NIS and NIC and is believed to provide an effective NIS framework that can measure a country’s NIC (Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ; Maruccia et al., 2020 ). Therefore, this study suggests that an NIS comprises the same five elements as the GII and that their combined effects impact NIC.
Institutions (INS) have always been considered a determining factor for a country’s NIC (Nelson, 1988 ). Within an economy, the responsibilities and relationships of actors are governed and regulated by laws, policies, and other institutional factors. The political, regulatory, and business environment set the conditions for innovation in different economies (Watkins et al., 2015 ), which vary in their ability to accommodate the high degree of uncertainty associated with innovation activities (Nelson, 2008 ). Countries with strong institutional support for innovation provide comprehensive policy services and a stable political environment for enterprise operations, featuring intellectual property protection, tax exemptions, and other policies to reduce operational risks and encourage innovative activities by enterprises and research institutions (Erzurumlu et al., 2022 ). The regulatory environment reflects government efforts to reduce conflicts between private sector development and economic actors and to cultivate more stable cooperative relationships (Furman et al., 2002 ; Yu et al., 2020 ). Meanwhile, the business environment reflects the government’s efforts to reduce uncertainty for corporations, for instance, by helping new entrepreneurs to start enterprises, resolving bankruptcy and tax issues, and encouraging the competitiveness necessary for innovation (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018 ).
Human capital and research (HCR) are valued as key elements of NIC (Castellacci and Natera, 2013 ). Having a well-established education system can create the human capital required to build innovation capabilities (Khedhaouria and Thurik, 2017 ). Higher education promotes innovation by directly supplying human capital and generating useful knowledge to support innovation (Saad et al., 2015 ). In addition, the research and development (R&D) activities of human capital are key to promoting innovation. Supporting internal R&D activities and improving the quality of scientific and research institutions are conducive to the assimilation, absorption, and creation of knowledge products (Chen et al., 2020 ).
Infrastructure (INF) refers to the goods and services provided by a country for the transfer and dissemination of technological knowledge that can enhance the country’s ability to absorb, adopt, and implement advanced foreign technologies (Castellacci and Natera, 2013 ). Infrastructure improvements can enhance innovation abilities and speed. The most common infrastructure in the NIS is information and communication technology (ICT), which enhances NIC by widely disseminating new ideas and investing in new applications (Lee et al., 2016 ). In addition, other infrastructures such as public utility networks (Bronzini and Piselli, 2009 ), power infrastructure and transportation systems (Lopez-Claros and Mata, 2010 ), and ecological sustainability infrastructure (Rakas and Hain, 2019 ) can also reduce economic costs and strengthen NIC. Communication and transportation logistics infrastructures can also promote innovation through promoting and disseminating innovative achievements (Fakhimi and Miremadi, 2022 ).
Market sophistication (MS) reflects the quality of the market, including finance, investment, trade, market size, and competition, and is an essential element of innovation (Filippetti and Archibugi, 2011 ). The financial system provides trade, competition, and sufficient domestic market size for enterprise prosperity and innovation (Helveston et al., 2019 ). Fierce competition encourages enterprises to continuously improve the quality of products and services to achieve continuous innovation and increase their market share and competitiveness (Wen et al., 2022 ).
Finally, business sophistication (BS) reflects the level of business conditions related to knowledge workers, the quality of business clusters and networks, and the absorptive capability of enterprises (Furman et al., 2002 ). Innovative talents with high-level skills are essential for enterprises to achieve innovation and improve their competitive advantage (Marvel et al., 2020 ). Employees with higher levels of education, experience, and skills are more eager to create new knowledge through communication and cooperation (Al-Omoush et al., 2022 ). Establishing innovative connections with joint ventures and strategic alliances can promote knowledge dissemination and accelerate innovation (Erzurumlu et al., 2013 ). In addition, the liberalization of international markets is conducive to the absorption and flow of knowledge (Khedhaouria and Thurik, 2017 ), and domestic innovation can be achieved by opening the NIS to international markets to attract foreign investment or by importing high-tech to absorb knowledge (Castellacci and Natera, 2013 ). Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the following:
Proposition 1 : The existence of institutions (INS) leads to high NIC .
Proposition 2 : The existence of human capital and research (HCR) leads to high NIC .
Proposition 3 : The existence of infrastructure (INF) leads to high NIC .
Proposition 4 : The presence of market sophistication (MS) leads to high NIC .
Proposition 5 : The presence of business sophistication (BS) leads to high NIC .
The theoretical framework of this study is shown in Fig. 1 .
Theoretical framework.
Research methodology
Method selection.
This study used fsQCA to analyze the configurations of NIS elements generating high NIC, according to GII Reports. QCA utilizes Boolean logic and algebra to analyze cases by exploring the common influence of multiple antecedent interactions on specific phenomena (Ragin, 2008 ). Unknown facts can be understood using information that is known to people (Thomann and Maggetti, 2020 ). FsQCA is suitable for this study for three reasons. First, fsQCA aims to explain the multiple pathways that lead to specific outcomes (Beynon et al., 2019 ) and analyze the impact of different combinations of antecedent conditions on those outcomes (Ferrer et al., 2023 ). It can thus delve deeply into the mechanisms of action between NIS elements and NIC, providing a clearer explanation for high NIC. Second, fsQCA is gradually being applied to research in the field of innovation (Dabić et al., 2021 ), particularly with GII Reports as the data source (Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ; Huarng and Yu, 2022 ). Third, existing studies have shown that fsQCA is suitable for small to medium-sized samples (López-Cabarcos et al., 2022 ), such as the one used in this study.
Prior studies have mostly used fsQCA to analyze only cross-sectional data, thus neglecting temporal dynamic effects (Huang et al., 2022 ). This prevents researchers from determining whether the configuration results are stable. With advances in research methods, fsQCA is gradually being used to process panel data (Guedes et al., 2016 ; Beynon et al., 2020 ; Piñeiro-Chousa et al., 2023 ). By incorporating time effects into fsQCA, this method can effectively evaluate the set theory relationship of panel data by comparing consistency and coverage across time and cases (Garcia-Castro and Ariño, 2016 ). This can compensate for the limitations of analysis based solely on cross-sectional data and thus provide new insights. This study follows the steps of Beynon et al. ( 2020 ): calibration, fsQCA analysis, and panel data analysis.
Data collection
This study uses GII to measure the NIC of various economies worldwide. Data were sourced from the GII Reports from 2011 to 2022. The sample comprises 44 high-income and 31 upper middle-income economies. The World Bank categorizes economies into different groups based on their per capita national income, including low-income, middle-income, and high-income economies. Due to the wide range of middle-income, it is further divided into two categories: lower middle and upper middle. For example, according to the classification criteria of the World Bank for 2020, a per capita national income of $4096–12,695 is classified as upper middle-income countries, and a per capita national income of US$12,695 or more is classified as high-income economies (the World Bank, 2024 ). However, this standard is not fixed and will be adjusted according to the global economic situation. This study groups economies based on the development trends of their per capita national income. Therefore, each economy always belongs to the high-income or upper middle-income economic group. The economies covered by high-income and upper middle-income economic groups are listed in the appendix. Table 1 shows the detailed sources of the data.
Calibration and measurement
In fsQCA, calibration is the process of assigning collective members to cases in which the calibrated collective members are between 0 and 1 (Ragin, 2008 ). As suggested by Ragin ( 2008 ), this study used the three thresholds of 0.95, 0.5, and 0.05 for direct calibration to determine the membership level of each case in the fuzzy set. Table 2 reports the anchor point calibration.
Necessity analysis
This study used fsQCA software to detect the necessary conditions, which are conducive to, but do not guarantee, the occurrence of results. Following existing literature (Amara et al., 2020 ; Beynon et al., 2020 ), the consistency threshold for necessity analysis was set to 0.9. The necessity analysis results are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 . None of the antecedent conditions constituted a necessary condition for generating high NIC. Therefore, it is necessary to further analyze the combinations of the five conditional variables to identify paths producing high NIC.
Necessity test results for high-income economies.
Necessity test results for upper middle-income economies.
Sufficiency analysis
Research often uses consistency thresholds within the range of 0.75–0.85 established by Ragin ( 2006 ), or natural discontinuity values that truncate consistency scores (Crilly et al., 2012 ). In addition, to ensure the minimum number of cases used to evaluate relationships, a frequency threshold must be set. Referring to the recommendations of Fiss ( 2011 ), this study set the consistency threshold to 0.8, the proportional reduction in inconsistency (PRI) to 0.75, and the case frequency threshold to 2 to obtain a truth table. The core solution is generally used to determine the number of configurations and variables, whereas the reduced solution is used to determine core conditions. According to Fiss ( 2011 ), a condition that appears in the reduced solution is a core condition, indicating a strong causal relationship with the outcome variable, while a condition that appears in the core solution but not in the reduced solution is a peripheral condition, only weakly related to the outcome variable. As reported in Table 3 , the configuration results indicate that from 2011 to 2022, four configurations can be considered sufficient conditions for generating high NIC in high-income economies, while there were two such configurations for upper middle-income economies.
Considering first the four configurations that can generate high NIC for high-income economies, configuration H1 included INS, HCR, and MS as the core conditions, and the presence or absence of INF and BS did not affect the results. The consistency score was 96.4%. In configuration H2, the core conditions were INS, MS, and BS, and the presence or absence of HCR and INF did not affect the results. The consistency score was 97.3%. The core conditions in configuration H3 were HCR, MS, and BS, and the presence or absence of INS and INF did not affect the results. The consistency score was 97.9%. Finally, configuration H4 included INS, HCR, INF, and BS as the core conditions, and the presence or absence of MS did not affect the results. The consistency score was 97.7%.
Turning next to the two configurations that can generate high NIC for upper middle-income economies, configuration H5 included INS, INF, and BS as the core conditions, and the presence or absence of HCR and MS did not affect the results. The consistency score was 95.3%. In configuration H6, the core conditions were HCR, MS, and BS, and the presence or absence of INS and INF did not affect the results. The consistency score was 96.1%.
In addition, the sufficiency analysis results indicated that configurations of H3 and H6 are the same, meaning that the combination of HCR, MS, and BS is beneficial for generating high NIC in both high- and upper middle-income economies. Additionally, H3 and H6 had the highest coverage in high-income group and upper middle-income group, indicating that the explanatory power and representativeness of the configuration are relatively good.
Panel data breakdown of FsQCA results
Since the development of NIC is dynamic and continuous, cross-sectional data are not sufficient to explain how the NIS elements affect NIC over time. Therefore, this study adopts the methods and techniques of Beynon et al. ( 2020 ) to explore the development of elements and configurations over time, aiming to improve understanding of the interaction between NIS elements and NIC. Results are reported for the time effect of necessary conditions and the time and cross-sectional effects of configurations for high NIC.
Time effect for necessary conditions: INF shows an upward trend
As shown in Figs. 2 and 3 , no NIS element constitutes a necessary condition for high NIC. Notably, however, the between consistency (BECONS) adjusted distance of INF for high NIC was greater than the threshold of 0.2. This indicates a significant time effect of INF on high NIC in both high- and upper middle-income economies. The necessity consistency of INF for high NIC increased annually (see Figs. 4 and 5 ).
Necessity consistency of NIS elements for high-income economies.
Necessity consistency of NIS elements for upper middle-income economies.
Time and cross-sectional effects for high NIC configurations
Configuration analysis is the focus of fsQCA. Table 4 shows the pooled consistency (POCONS), between consistency distance (BECONS distance), within consistency distance (WICONS distance), and adjusted distance for all the panel data. The pooled consistency (POCONS) of all configurations that generate a high NIC is >0.8, indicating that POCONS has good explanatory power (Guedes et al., 2016 ). These six configurations can be considered sufficient conditions for high NIC generation.
BECONS measures the consistency of cross-section t in panel data every year (Beynon et al., 2020 ). The BECONS values for each configuration from 2011 to 2022 are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 , demonstrating their evolution trends over time. The consistency of H1 declined slightly in 2018, then showed an upward trend in 2020. H2 and H3 exhibited significantly higher consistency (from 2011 to 2022). Similar to H1, H4 showed a slight downward trend in 2018. H5 showed significantly high consistency from 2011 to 2018, followed by a downward trend after 2019. In contrast, the consistency of H6 was relatively stable. The BECONS adjusted distance tests the time effect in each case. The results show that the BECONS adjusted distance for all six configurations was <0.2, indicating that there was no significant time effect (Garcia-Castro and Ariño, 2016 ).
BECONS values for configurations in high-income economies.
BECONS values for configurations in upper middle-income economies.
WICONS measures the vertical consistency of set–subset connections of cases in a panel (Garcia-Castro and Ariño, 2016 ) and was measured at the national level. Figures 8 and 9 show the evolution trends in WICONS values from 2011 to 2022. The results reveal strong consistency in respective configurations H1–H4 in ~30 countries, together with strong consistency in configurations H5 and H6 for ~20 countries. The figures also present the WICONS values for each configuration in other countries. In addition, the WICONS adjusted distance tests the heterogeneity of cases. The results show that the WICONS adjusted distances of H1–H6 were <0.2. This indicates that there was no significant cross-sectional effect in H1–H6 (Garcia-Castro and Ariño, 2016 ).
WICONS values for configurations in high-income economies.
WICONS values for configurations in upper middle-income economies.
As previously mentioned, H3 and H6 have the same configuration. This configuration did not exhibit significant time effects (BECONS adjusted distance <0.2) or cross-sectional effects (WICONS adjusted distance <0.2) in the high- and upper middle-income economies. There is no significant difference in the explanatory power of this configuration between the two economy types.
The fsQCA results reveal four paths to high NIC in high-income economies (H1–H4) and two paths to high NIC in upper middle-income economies (H5 and H6). These six paths indicate how the five elements of NIS interact to produce high NIC, and reveal that diverse combinations of antecedent conditions can produce the same result (Fagerberg and Srholec, 2008 ). This study thus supports the view that innovation is complex (Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ). To achieve high NIC, different income economies should strive to develop multiple elements of the NIS (Khedhaouria and Thurik, 2017 ; Huarng and Yu, 2022 ). This study also supports the view that no single element of the NIS can be a necessary condition for high NIC.
The panel data results show a time effect in the necessity of INF for NIC, both for high- and upper middle-income economies. Previous studies have shown the importance of INF for NIC (Lee et al., 2016 ) but have not pointed out its time effect. This study thus enriches understanding by suggesting that the impact of INF on NIC gradually increases over time. In other words, INF provides the necessary technological structure for knowledge transfer and diffusion, which is increasingly important for improving the NIC. INF includes Information and communication technologies (ICTs), General infrastructure and Ecological sustainability (WIPO, 2022 ). Among them, analyzing the performance of ICT can help us understand the importance of INF for NIC. Especially with the spread of the digital revolution into multiple fields, the impact on NIC of ICT—an important INF component—will increase further (Lee et al., 2022 ). China could be a representative example of the INF role within the NIC framework. The development of ICT has changed the composite pattern of innovation elements and strengthened NIC (Liu and Lee, 2021 ). A panel data analysis showed that ICT penetration affects economic growth by promoting knowledge dissemination and innovation (Vu, 2011 ). On the one hand, the extensive network structure of INF generates an economic foundation for innovation by promoting transactions, reducing costs, and increasing market access (Dutta et al. 2010 ). As enterprises transform and upgrade, ICT helps them collaborate with other participants and promote open innovation practices (Zhou et al., 2019 ). The role of ICT in upper middle-income economies includes not only supporting the innovation activities of enterprises but also stimulating entrepreneurial activities. With the rise of the internet in China, an increasing number of people are doing business online, and the number of small and medium-sized enterprises relying on online trading platforms is gradually rising. The trend of entrepreneurs adopting ICT used by their peers will expand due to “social influence” (Afawubo and Noglo, 2022 ). ICT provides hardware support for green technology innovation, and the improvement of green innovation in enterprises and cities has driven the upgrading of existing network infrastructure (Tang et al., 2021 ). In summary, INF promotes innovation, and improved innovation drives infrastructure upgrading. The role of INF in innovation gradually increases over time.
Combining the results of the fsQCA and panel data analysis reveals one path to generating high NIC in both high- and upper middle-income economies (see Fig. 10 ). Configurations H3 and H6 are the same, and there were no significant time or cross-sectional effects between 2011 and 2022. This means that the combination of HCR, MS, and BS has a long-lasting and stable association with high NIC in both types of economies. HCR includes performance in the aspects of Education, Tertiary education, Research and development (R&D). MS includes performance in the aspects of Credit, Investment, Trade, diversification, and market scale. BS includes performance in the aspects of Knowledge workers/Innovation linkages/Knowledge absorption. Due to limitations in research methods, we are unable to present the sequential effects of HS, MS, and HCR on high NIC. Notably, the panel data results show that H3 covers the Switzerland case from 2011 to 2022, while H6 covers the Chinese case over the same period, indicating that HCR*MS*BS has strong explanatory power for Switzerland and China. Analyzing the situation in Switzerland and China helps to understand how HCR*MS*BS drives NIC. According to the 2022 GII Report (WIPO, 2022 ), Switzerland and China rank first among high- and upper middle-income economies, respectively. Switzerland has ranked first for 12 consecutive years, while China is the only developing country with a top 30 GII ranking. As a representative case of HCR*MS*BS in a high-income economy, Switzerland has shown excellent and stable NIC (WIPO, 2022 ). In the 2022 GII report, Switzerland ranked 4th globally in HCR, 8th in MS, and 7th in BS. In terms of HCR, Research and Development (R&D) has performed exceptionally well in Switzerland. It has a strong education system and is continent-leading in the workforce size and R&D expenditures of knowledge-intensive enterprises—a persistent advantage of the Swiss NIS (Marxt and Brunner, 2013 ). In terms of MS, credit and investment performed excellently. Switzerland is also closely connected to global markets, and its comprehensive tax system encourages regions to actively promote innovation (Erzurumlu et al., 2022 ). In terms of BS, the performance of Innovation linkages is very high, mainly manifested in University–industry R&D collaboration, Patent families, and State of cluster development and depth (WIPO, 2022 ). Similar to the situation in Switzerland, China’s Research and Development (R&D) has performed outstandingly in HCR. The National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China pointed out that in 2022, the Chinese government’s R&D investment exceeded 3 trillion yuan (The State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2023 ). China’s emphasis on basic research and major technological infrastructure is increasing. In addition, thanks to the large-scale market scale, China’s MS has performed excellently. MS drives innovation in emerging enterprises in various ways. For example, green investments in China drive enterprises to engage in green innovation activities by alleviating financing constraints (Zhang et al., 2023 ). This is conducive to stimulating the innovation vitality of enterprises and improving NIC. On BS, multiple government departments in China have introduced various measures to reform intellectual property rights, demonstrating commitment to further enhancing the country’s innovation capability (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2022 ). In addition, both countries have performed well in INF. As the common combination of high and upper-middle-income countries, the HCR*MS*BS combination needs relatively more emphasis, as well as INF.
Common path to high NIC.
Theoretical implications
First, this study improves the transparency and replicability of innovation paths in different economies by analyzing the time effects of NIS elements on the necessity and combinatorial effects of NIC and broadens the perspective of NIS-related theoretical research. This study finds that no single element is a necessary condition for high NIC and that the necessity consistency of INF for NIC increases over time. In other words, the importance of INF for NIC in high- and upper middle-income economies is gradually increasing. In addition, four configurations can generate high NIC for high-income economies, while two configurations can do the same for upper middle-income economies. The combination of HCR, MS, and BS was found to generate high NIC in both types of economies. Previous studies have shown that the combination of INS, HCR, INF, and BS can generate high NIC (Khedhaouria and Thurik, 2017 ). This study further expands the timeliness of the impact of this configuration: from 2011 to 2022, it can steadily drive some high-income economies to achieve high NIC. Overall, this study characterizes the interdependence and evolutionary path of NIS elements, providing reference for different economies to optimize resource allocation worldwide.
Second, this study makes another important contribution regarding research methods. Previous studies have only analyzed configurations that generate high GII within a given year (Crespo and Crespo, 2016 ; Khedhaouria and Thurik, 2017 ; Huarng and Yu, 2022 ). Limited by Cross-sectional data, the evolution trend of innovation paths in different economies has not been further revealed. Since the global innovation landscape is constantly evolving, researchers need to investigate the impact of time on fsQCA results. This study builds on innovative attempts to incorporate time effects into the fsQCA method (Garcia-Castro and Ariño, 2016 ; Guedes et al., 2016 ; Beynon et al., 2020 ), thereby revealing a stable configuration of NIS elements that generate consistently high NIC. As an extension of previous studies on GII and NIC, this study emphasizes the time effect of INF’s necessity consistency and that there is a path for generating high NIC in both high- and upper middle-income economies. In summary, this study takes an important step in advancing research methods, which provides a robust and universal interpretation of global innovation trends.
Management implications
This study has practical implications for different economies. First, the increase in INF’s necessity consistency for high NIC indicates the rising importance of this element. High- and upper middle-income economies should further strengthen infrastructure construction; optimize infrastructure layout, structure, functions, and development models, and promote further improvements in innovation capabilities.
Second, the results show that the HCR*MS*BS configuration can promote the generation of high NIC in both types of economies. Therefore, managers should pay more attention to the interaction mechanisms among these three factors. In particular, it is important to improve the education system and provide talent resources to activate innovation. In addition, diversification of the trade market should be promoted by optimizing the credit system and venture capital projects. Similarly, managers should prioritize the role of knowledge-based BS in improving NIC, and promote knowledge absorption and creation by increasing connections between industry, academia, and research while also optimizing research and development efficiency.
Finally, the results indicate that no single NIS element can generate high NIC. Four configurations can drive high-income economies to generate high NIC, while two configurations can do the same in upper middle-income economies. Therefore, different economies should focus on the combined effect of NIS elements and the interaction mechanisms between them. To efficiently improve NIC, government decision-makers should choose the paths best suited for their current development level.
Limitations and future study directions
This study has some limitations. First, we only analyzed the configurations that generated high NICs from 2011 to 2022 and did not consider the configurations that generated low NIC. The latter is also worth studying to alert countries with lagging innovation. Accordingly, future research could further analyze the configurations that cause low NIC, and provide a more comprehensive interpretation of GII Reports and the global innovation environment.
Second, although this study used fsQCA with panel data to analyze NIC, and addressed the lack of time effects in previous studies employing fsQCA, we did not analyze the order of the role of the elements. Future research could combine other methods and tools to conduct a more detailed analysis of this complex problem.
Third, this study uses innovation inputs from the GII Report as NIS elements. Future research could further expand the analytical perspective by incorporating other possible key elements, thereby increasing understanding of how the NIS influences NIC.
This study explores the dynamic impact on NIC of the five NIS elements: institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication. The fsQCA results reveal four stable configurations that can generate high NIC in high-income economies, and two stable configurations producing the same outcome in upper middle-income economies. One path (HCR*MS*BS) can continuously drive both types of economy to achieve high NIC. The panel data results show a time effect on the necessity consistency of INF for high NIC, indicating that it plays an increasingly important role. This study depicts the evolution trend of the global innovation landscape, improves the transparency and replicability of innovation paths for different economies, and provides robust data support for adjusting innovation strategies for each economy. Therefore, further developing NIS to enhance NIC is a key measure for achieving sustainable development in different income economies. The research results will help different economies adjust innovation policies, optimize the allocation of innovation factors, and improve innovation capability. Overall, the research findings greatly contribute to improving understanding of this exploratory topic.
Data availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the present study are available from the Corresponding author upon reasonable request or openly available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2022.108818 .
Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE, Licht G (2017) National systems of innovation. J Technol Transfer 42:997–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9481-8
Article Google Scholar
Afawubo K, Noglo YA (2022) ICT and entrepreneurship: a comparative analysis of developing, emerging and developed countries. Technol Forecast Soc Change 175:121312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121312
Alcorta L, Peres W (1998) Innovation systems and technological specialization in Latin America and the Caribbean. Res Policy 26:857–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00067-X
Al-Omoush KS, Palacios-Marques D, Ulrich K (2022) The impact of intellectual capital on supply chain agility and collaborative knowledge creation in responding to unprecedented pandemic crises. Technol Forecast Soc Change 178:121603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121603
Amara N, Rhaiem M, Halilem N (2020) Assessing the research efficiency of Canadian scholars in the management field: evidence from the DEA and fsQCA. J Bus Res 115:296–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.059
Balzat M, Hanusch H (2004) Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. J Evol Econ 14:197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0187-y
Beynon MJ, Jones P, Pickernell D (2019) The role of entrepreneurship, innovation, and urbanity-diversity on growth, unemployment, and income: US state-level evidence and an fsQCA elucidation. J Bus Res 101:675–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.074
Beynon MJ, Jones P, Pickernell D (2020) Country-level entrepreneurial attitudes and activity through the years: a panel data analysis using fsQCA. J Bus Res 115:443–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.021
Bronzini R, Piselli P (2009) Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers: the role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Reg Sci Urban Econ 39:187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.07.002
Calia RC, Guerrini FM, Moura GL (2007) Innovation networks: from technological development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation 27:426–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.08.003
Casadella V, Uzunidis D (2017) National innovation systems of the south, innovation and economic development policies: a multidimensional approach. J Innov Econ Manag 2:137–157. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.pr1.0007
Castellacci F, Natera JM (2013) The dynamics of national innovation systems: a panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Res Policy 42:579–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.006
Chen K, Zhang Y, Zhu G, Mu R (2020) Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities? Technovation 94:102002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.10.005
Crespo NF, Crespo CF (2016) Global Innovation Index: moving beyond the absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. J Bus Res 69:5265–5271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.123
Crilly D, Zollo M, Hansen MT (2012) Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Acad Manag J 55:1429–1448. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0697
Dabić M, Marzi G, Vlačić B, Daim TU, Vanhaverbeke W (2021) 40 years of excellence: an overview of Technovation and a roadmap for future research. Technovation 106:102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102303
Dutta S, Pal A, Skaria G, Khanna L (2010) Global Innovation Index 2009–2010. Confederación of Indian Industry-Canon India Private Limited, Mumbai, India
Edquist C (2001). Innovation policy in the systems of innovation approach: some basic principles. In: Fischer MM, Fröhlich J (eds) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. advances in spatial science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Erzurumlu SS, Erzurumlu YO, Yoon Y (2022) National innovation systems and dynamic impact of institutional structures on national innovation capability: a configurational approach with the OKID method. Technovation 114:102552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102552
Erzurumlu SS, Tanrisever F, Joglekar N (2013) Operational hedging strategies to overcome financial constraints during clean technology start-up and growth. In: Small and medium enterprises: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. IGI Global, pp. 1044–1063
Fagerberg J, Srholec M (2008) National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Res Policy 37:1417–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.06.003
Fakhimi M, Miremadi I (2022) The impact of technological and social capabilities on innovation performance: a technological catch-up perspective. Technol Soc 68:101890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101890
Fernandes AJC, Rodrigues RG, Ferreira JJ (2022) National innovation systems and sustainability: what is the role of the environmental dimension? J Clean Prod 347:131164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131164
Ferrer JM, Ulrich K, Blanco-González-Tejero C, Caño-Marín E (2023) Investors’ confidence in the crowdlending platform and the impact of Covid-19. J Bus Res 155:113433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113433
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Filippetti A, Archibugi D (2011) Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand. Res Policy 40:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.001
Fiss PC (2011) Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag J 54:393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
Freeman C (1987) Technology, policy, and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter Publishers, New York
Google Scholar
Furman JL, Porter ME, Stern S (2002) The determinants of national innovative capacity. Res Policy 31:899–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00152-4
Garcia-Castro R, Ariño MA (2016) A general approach to panel data set-theoretic research. J Adv Manag Sci Inf Syst 2(63-76):526. https://doi.org/10.6000/2371-1647.2016.02.06
Guedes MJ, da Conceição Gonçalves V, Soares N, Valente M (2016) UK evidence for the determinants of R&D intensity from a panel fsQCA. J Bus Res 69:5431–5436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.150
Helveston JP, Wang Y, Karplus VJ, Fuchs ER (2019) Institutional complementarities: The origins of experimentation in China’s plug-in electric vehicle industry. Res Policy 48:206–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.006
Hu MC, Kang JS, Wu CY (2017) Determinants of profiting from innovation activities: comparisons between technological leaders and latecomers. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:223–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.013
Huang Y, Li S, Xiang X, Bu Y, Guo Y (2022) How can the combination of entrepreneurship policies activate regional innovation capability? A comparative study of Chinese provinces based on fsQCA. J Innov Knowl 7:100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100227
Huarng KH, Yu THK (2022) Analysis of Global Innovation Index by Structural Qualitative Association. Technol Forecast Soc Change 182:121850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121850
Jankowska B, Matysek-Jędrych A, Mroczek-Dąbrowska K (2017) Efficiency of national innovation systems: Poland and Bulgaria in the context of the Global Innovation Index. Comp Econ Res 20:77–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2017-0021
Kashani ES, Roshani S (2019) Evolution of innovation system literature: intellectual bases and emerging trends. Technol Forecast Soc Change 146:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.010
Khan MS (2022) Absorptive capacities and economic growth in low-and middle-income economies. Struct Change Econ D 62:156–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.07.004
Khayyat NT, Lee JD (2015) A measure of technological capabilities for developing countries. Technol Forecast Soc Change 92:210–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.003
Khedhaouria A, Thurik R (2017) Configurational conditions of national innovation capability: a fuzzy set analysis approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 120:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.005
Kim J, Lee K (2022) Local-global interface as a key factor in the catching up of regional innovation systems: fast versus slow catching up among Taipei, Shenzhen, and Penang in Asia. Technol Forecast Soc Change 174:121271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121271
Kwon S, Motohashi K (2017) How institutional arrangements in the National Innovation System affect industrial competitiveness: a study of Japan and the US with multiagent simulation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 115:221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.005
Lee CC, He ZW, Xiao F (2022) How does information and communication technology affect renewable energy technology innovation? International evidence. Renew Energy 200:546–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.10.015
Lee K, Lee J, Lee J (2021) Variety of national innovation systems (NIS) and alternative pathways to growth beyond the middle-income stage: balanced, imbalanced, catching-up, and trapped NIS. World Dev 144:105472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105472
Lee S, Nam Y, Lee S, Son H (2016) Determinants of ICT innovations: a cross-country empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Change 110:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.010
Liu M, Lee CC (2021) Capturing the dynamics of the China crude oil futures: Markov switching, co-movement, and volatility forecasting. Energy Econ 103:105622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105622
Lopez-Claros A, Mata YN (2010) The innovation capacity index: factors, policies, and institutions driving country innovation. The Innovation for Development Report 2009–2010. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 3–65
López-Cabarcos MÁ, Vázquez-Rodríguez P, Quiñoá-Piñeiro LM (2022) An approach to employees’ job performance through work environmental variables and leadership behaviours. J Bus Res 140:361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.006
Lundvall BÅ, Johnson B, Andersen ES, Dalum B (2002) National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Res Policy 31:213–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8
Marvel MR, Wolfe MT, Kuratko DF (2020) Escaping the knowledge corridor: how founder human capital and founder coachability impacts product innovation in new ventures. J Bus Ventur 35:106060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106060
Maruccia Y, Solazzo G, Del Vecchio P, Passiante G (2020) Evidence from network analysis application to innovation systems and quintuple helix. Technol Forecast Soc Change 161:120306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120306
Marxt C, Brunner C (2013) Analyzing and improving the national innovation system of highly developed countries—the case of Switzerland. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:1035–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.07.008
Matos S, Viardot E, Sovacool BK, Geels FW, Xiong Y (2022) Innovation and climate change: a review and introduction to the special issue. Technovation 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102612
Metcalfe JS (1995) Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Camb J Econ 19:25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035307
Metcalfe S, Ramlogan R (2008) Innovation systems and the competitive process in developing economies. Q Rev Econ Financ 482:433–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2006.12.021
Nelson RR (1988) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London
Nelson RR (2008) Economic development from the perspective of evolutionary economic theory. Oxf Dev Stud 36:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810701848037
Numminen S (1996) National innovation systems: pilot case study of the knowledge distribution power of Finland. VTT
Piñeiro-Chousa J, López-Cabarcos MÁ, Pérez-Pico AM, Caby J (2023) The influence of twitch and sustainability on the stock returns of video game companies: before and after COVID-19. J Bus Res 157:113620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113620
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Prokop V, Hajek P, Stejskal J (2021) Configuration paths to efficient national innovation ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc Change 168:120787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120787
Ragin CC (2006) Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Polit Anal 14:291–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj019
Ragin CC (2008) Measurement versus calibration: a set‐theoretic approach. In: Box-Steffensmeier JM, Brady HE, Collier D (eds) The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford Academic (online edn, 2 September 2009)
Rakas M, Hain DS (2019) The state of innovation system research: what happens beneath the surface? Res Policy 48:103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.011
Saad M, Guermat C, Brodie L (2015) National innovation and knowledge performance: the role of higher education teaching and training. Stud High Educ 40:1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881344
Schot J, Steinmueller WE (2018) Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res Policy 47:1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Tang C, Xu Y, Hao Y, Wu H, Xue Y (2021) What is the role of telecommunications infrastructure construction in green technology innovation? A firm-level analysis for China. Energy Econ 103:105576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105576
The State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2023) National Bureau of Statistics Interprets China’s R&D Expenditure Data. Available at https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2023-01/20/content_5738201.htm
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China (2022). Press Conference for “New Progress Report on China’s Intellectual Property Protection and Business Environment”. Available at http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfb/gwyxwbgsxwfbh/wqfbh_2284/2022n_2285/2022n04y26r/ . Accessed 15 Jun 2023
The World Bank (2024). World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available at https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups . Accessed 23 Jun 2024
Thomann E, Maggetti M (2020) Designing research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociol Methods Res 49:356–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700
Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
Ulmanen J, Bergek A (2021) Influences of technological and sectoral contexts on technological innovation systems. Environ Innov Soc Transit 40:20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.04.007
Vu KM (2011) ICT as a source of economic growth in the information age: empirical evidence from the 1996–2005 period. Telecom Policy 35:357–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.02.008
Watkins A, Papaioannou T, Mugwagwa J, Kale D (2015) National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: a critical review of the literature. Res Policy 44:1407–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.004
Wen H, Zhong Q, Lee CC (2022) Digitalization, competition strategy and corporate innovation: evidence from Chinese manufacturing listed companies. Int Rev Financ Anal 82:102166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102166
World Intellectual Property Organization (2022) Global Innovation Index 2022: what is the future of innovation-driven growth? WIPO, Geneva
Yu X, Paudel KP, Li D, Xiong X, Gong Y (2020) Sustainable collaborative innovation between research institutions and seed enterprises in China. Sustainability 12:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020624
Zhang X, Song Y, Zhang M (2023) Exploring the relationship of green investment and green innovation: evidence from Chinese corporate performance. J Clean Prod 137444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137444
Zhou Q, Gao P, Chimhowu A (2019) ICTs in the transformation of rural enterprises in China: a multi-layer perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change 145:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.026
Download references
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Major Projects on Philosophy and Social Sciences of The Ministry of Education, “Research on Comprehensively Improving the Quality of Domestic Talent Development under New Circumstances” (No. 23JZD045). We would like to thank the editor and reviewers whose suggestions and comments greatly helped to improve and clarify the manuscript. Yangjie Huang, Sihui Li and Leilei Huang as corresponding authors.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Institute of China Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
Yangjie Huang, Sihui Li & Xiyuan Xiang
School of Medical Humanities and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
Yangjie Huang & Leilei Huang
School of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
Yangjie Huang: Funding acquisition, project administration, writing—original draft, review and editing. Sihui Li: Conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, writing—original draft, review and editing. Xiyuan Xiang: writing—original draft. Leilei Huang: review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Yangjie Huang , Sihui Li or Leilei Huang .
Ethics declarations
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
The process and procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was obtained from the Professor Committee at the Institute of China innovation and entrepreneurship education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China. The ethical approval protocol number 2021-01.
Informed consent
No animal studies are presented in this manuscript. No human studies are presented in this manuscript. No potentially identifiable human images is presented in this study. Since this data set is used for scientific purposes and only contains public information from Global Innovation Index (2011–2022), it meets all terms and conditions required from the first author’s institution.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Appendix 1 economies of different groups, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Huang, Y., Li, S., Xiang, X. et al. Analyzing the configuration of the National Innovation System for Innovation Capability: evidence from Global Innovation Index reports. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1266 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03792-x
Download citation
Received : 01 December 2023
Accepted : 13 September 2024
Published : 27 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03792-x
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Microbial Resource Reports, with Marco Ventura as Editor-in-Chief, focuses on research in the fields of microbiology such as bifidobacteria, intestinal microbiota, microbiome, probiotics, phages, and antibiotics. Published research on microbial ecology, intestinal microbiome, host-microbe interactions, intestinal fungi, metagenomics, microbial DNA sequencing, etc.
Microbiome Research Reports (MRR) is an international peer-reviewed, open access journal.It has been indexed in ESCI, Scopus, PMC, CAS, and Lens.. Aims and Scope. The scope of the journal includes investigations of microbiomes present in one or various body compartments of human beings or other animals.
Microbiome Research Reports. Microbiome Research. Reports. Published by OAE Publishing Inc. Online ISSN: 2771-5965. Disciplines: Microbiology. Journal website Author guidelines. Top read articles ...
We are pleased to announce that the new journal--Microbiome Research Reports (MRR) is officially released online on July 26, 2021, aiming to publish high-quality research from scientists with a common interest in microbiome/microbiota research all its multidisciplinary aspects.The journal's scope includes investigations of microbiomes present in or various body compartments of human beings ...
Microbiome IF is decreased by a factor of 0.61 and approximate percentage change is -4.43% when compared to preceding year 2022, which shows a falling trend. The impact IF , also denoted as Journal impact score (JIS), of an academic journal is a measure of the yearly average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal.
Microbiome Research ReportsVols. 1 to 3; 2022 to 2024. Articles from Microbiome Research Reports are provided here courtesy of OAE Publishing Inc.
The central purpose of Microbiome is to unite investigators conducting microbiome research in environmental, agricultural, and biomedical arenas. Topics broadly addressing the study of microbial communities, such as, microbial surveys, bioinformatics, meta-omics approaches and community/host interaction modeling will be considered for ...
Last modification date: 27/12/2023 Type of record: Confirmed ISSN Center responsible of the record: ISSN National Centre for the USA For all potential issues concerning the description of the publication identified by this bibliographic record (missing or wrong data etc.), please contact the ISSN National Centre mentioned above by clicking on the link.
Read the latest Research articles in Microbiome from Scientific Reports. ... Impact of the diet in the gut microbiota after an inter-species microbial transplantation in fish. ... Research articles
Bovine reproductive tract and microbiome dynamics: current knowledge, challenges, and its potential to enhance fertility in dairy cows. Vaginal Dysbiosis and the Potential of Vaginal Microbiome-Directed Therapeutics. Effect of dietary omega-6 fatty acid enrichment in a rodent model of military relevant acute traumatic psychological stress and ...
Scientific reports are the most productive journal, with 605 articles in this field, followed by Frontiers in microbiology (510) and Plos one (409). ... There was a significant positive correlation between impact factor values and the citations per article ... gut microbiome research involves multi-disciplinary, ...
This figure illustrates how environmental exposures have a direct impact on the human microbiome, implicated in human health and diseases, including orodigestive tract cancers, neurologic diseases, diabetes, and obesity. These environmental exposures are influenced by and interrelated with the macroenvironment, including the toxicological and ...
Microbiome Research Reports studies Gut Microbiome, Microbiome-gut-brain axis, and Human gut microbiome. Microbiome Research Reports (MRR) is an international peer-reviewed, open access journal.The scope of the journal includes investigations of ... This open ecosystem is also influenced by personal and environmental factors, but the precise ...
The Editorial Office of Microbiome Research Reports (MRR) is excited to announce that MRR has been officially accepted for inclusion in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI, Web of Science) as of Aug 7, 2024.. Eligibility: This milestone heralds MRR's forthcoming inaugural impact factor in June 2025, marking a significant achievement.Articles published from Volume 1, 2022, onwards will ...
Microbiome 2023-2024 Journal's Impact IF is 16.837. Check Out IF Ranking, Prediction, Trend & Key Factor Analysis. ... The central purpose of Microbiome is to unite investigators conducting microbiome research in environmental, agricultural, and biomedical arenas. ... Microbiome publishes reports - . Microbiome Key Factor Analysis. Coverage ...
Journal Rankings on Microbiology. All subject areas. Microbiology. Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous) Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous) Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous) Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management.
2. iMeta. The latest impact factor of iMeta for 2023 is 23.7. iMeta publishes open access research that unites metagenomics and bioinformatics research.The journal scope includes microbiome in humans, animals, plants, and environment, meta-omics methods/protocols development and application, bioinformatics tools, pipelines, databases, and packages, and systematic reviews in metagenomics ...
The field of microbiome research began about 25 years ago with the emergence of next-generation metagenomics sequencing technologies. Citation 1 The field advanced exponentially thereafter with multiple active consortia characterizing almost every environment and body site and raising calls for more rigorous experimental design and data collection standards by 2012.
impact of dietary components on the microbiota, and inter-individual variation in responses; host-microbiome interaction in immune response; Interdisciplinary studies of fundamental problems are particularly welcome. The journal publishes a variety of formats including Original Research articles, Short Reports, Reviews and Commentaries, etc.
Figure 1. The trends and growth of microbiome research over the past years. Data were extracted from Web of Science Core Collection database on March 29th, 2023. (A) Keywords cluster map illustrating the hot spots in microbiome research, with 638 terms occurred at least 100 times since 1985. (B) Tree map indicating the geographical distribution ...
The lower respiratory tract (LRT) microbiome impacts human health, especially among critically ill patients. However, comprehensive characterizations of the LRT microbiome remain challenging due ...
This could have been due to the change in diet, water environment, or other factors that accompanied the relocation. He also examined the number of NG2 glia in the Crick mice, finding that these were also at normal levels, suggesting that the Crick-fed microbiome was somehow protective against hypopituitarism.
Further research is necessary to explore potential factors influencing the oncogenicity of different HPV types and their interaction with the cervical microbiome. ... Scientific Reports - Cervical ...
Microbiome Research Reports. Search Submit ... A microbial symphony: a literature review of the factors that orchestrate the colonization dynamics of the human colonic microbiome during infancy and implications for future health. Open Access Review 23 Sep 2024. DOI: 10.20517/mrr.2024.32.
Newspaper coverage of microbiome research. Based on previous studies of press coverage of biomedical research [34-37], we used the Factiva database to search for news stories on the microbiome in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión) from the United States, the United ...
Please use correctly the terms "sex" (biological factors) and "gender" (identity and socio-cultural factors). 2.3.2.1 Introduction. Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance). State the specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation.
Irvine, Calif., Sept. 27, 2024 — Research from the University of California, Irvine has revealed how disruption of the circadian clock, the body's internal, 24-hour biological pacemaker, may accelerate the progression of colorectal cancer by affecting the gut microbiome and intestinal barrier function.This discovery offers new avenues for prevention and treatment strategies.
Previous studies focus mainly on the static impact of factors in the national innovation system on NIC in a given year. Research is still lacking on whether these factors have continuing, stable ...