ArticlePloS one2025
Patterns of diversity in biomedical coauthorships: An analysis across authors' ethnicity, gender, age, and expertise.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient and author diversity and representation in studies supporting the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases/Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax severe community-acquired pneumonia guidelines.Respiratory research & clinical practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple studies have linked diversity in scientific collaborations to innovative and impactful research. Here, we explore how different diversity indices-ethnicity, gender, academic age, and topical expertise-interact and thereby influence scientific impact. Leveraging nearly 900,000 biomedical journal articles from PubMed, published in major journals between 1991 and 2014, we investigate the nuanced relationships among these diversity indices and their collective influence on research outcomes. By systematically varying model parametrizations, we assess the robustness of the observed relationships and examine multiple methodological choices. Our findings reveal a consistent pattern of demographic homophily, where scientists tend to collaborate with others who share similar ethnic and gender backgrounds. While each diversity index correlates significantly with impact when considered individually, gender diversity and topical expertise emerge as the strongest positive predictors of impact after accounting for key covariates. However, the association between diversity and impact is moderated by the number of collaborating authors, with larger teams sometimes showing opposite trends due to interactions between the computed diversity indices and team size. Despite this complexity, the practical drivers of scientific impact for an article remain the journal of publication, authors' prior citation rate, and the number of co-authors. On further examining expertise diversity through three separate dimensions: variety, balance, and disparity, our findings indicate that impactful teams balance a wide range of subject matter expertise while maintaining a focused connection on closely related topics. These findings highlight the importance of strategic team composition and underline the significance of team diversity in scientific research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.