Life Science’s Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of the scientific literature is important for evaluating the evolution and state of science. To study how the density of biological literature has changed over the past two decades we visually inspected 1464 research articles related only to the biological sciences from ten scholarly journals (with average Impact Factors, IF, ranging from 3.8 to 32.1). By scoring the number of data items (tables and figures), density of composite figures (labeled panels per figure or PPF), as well as the number of authors, pages and references per research publication we calculated an Average Publishable Unit or APU for 1993, 2003, and 2013. The data show an overall increase in the average ± SD number of data items from 1993 to 2013 of approximately 7±3 to 14±11 and PPF ratio of 2±1 to 4±2 per article, suggesting that the APU has doubled in size over the past two decades. As expected, the increase in data items per article is mainly in the form of supplemental material, constituting 0 to 80% of the data items per publication in 2013, depending on the journal. The changes in the average number of pages (approx. 8±3 to 10±3), references (approx. 44±18 to 56±24) and authors (approx. 5±3 to 8±9) per article are also presented and discussed. The average number of data items, figure density and authors per publication are correlated with the journal’s average IF. The increasing APU size over time is important when considering the value of research articles for life scientists and publishers, as well as, the implications of these increasing trends in the mechanisms and economics of scientific communication.

Disequilibrium in Gender Ratios among Authors who Contributed Equally

“…In recent decades, the number of authors per publication has increased steadily [1; 2]. The causes for these trends include the higher production of scientific information by research teams [3] and increase in the data content of published papers [4; 5], which in turn usually requires contributions by additional scientists. This increase in number of authors per article has raised questions about credit allocation.…”

Anecdotes in Primatology: Temporal Trends, Anthropocentrism, and Hierarchies of Knowledge

“…Secondly, anecdotal accounts usually lack the complex quantitative analyses that are becoming increasingly common in the natural sciences (Cordero et al. ; Plaven‐Sigray et al. ).…”

“…Entangled within these disciplinary shifts is an increase in complexity and decrease in the readability of published scientific research, making scientific knowledge less accessible to nonspecialists entering the field or those with limited resources (Cordero et al. ; Plaven‐Sigray et al. 2 017).…”

Change in Format, Register and Narration Style in the Biomedical Literature: A 1948 Example

“…This solution would actually be quite impractical today, as efforts are being made to condense studies while avoiding publishing reports on incremental new data [35] and it has been shown that the Average Publishable Unit, i.e., the amount of content that constitutes an independent article, has steadily increased [30]. This habit of multiplying publications beyond what is reasonable is ironically labeled "salami science" [36,37] and it is often mostly fueled by the need to increase the number of publications on one's resume for career purposes, as the number of publications is a commonly used metric for scientific proficiency [38].…”