: Background: Since the consensus of ISAPP on the definition of the term “postbiotic” there has been an enthusiasm for publications, in review form - their number being disproportionate to the primary research. The aim of this bibliometry is to analyze the perspectives of the first and the last authors of such reviews; and, specifically, to note the connection of these authors with the broader subject of microbiome and probiotics. Methods: Search of the PubMed database for review articles on post-biotics, published between November 2021 and December 2023. Results: Analysis was performed on 76 review articles, the number corresponding to 2.9 reviews per month. Poland, China, Italy, Argentina and Iran had the maximum productivity among the 30 countries involved; 39 articles were published in 12 high-impact journals, while 31 were in journals with an IF between 5 and 5.9. The authors were mainly affiliated to universities with specialization in both basic research and technology, as well as food science. Eighteen first authors and six last authors had zero previous publications on the related topic of the microbiome and probiotics; and another 7 last authors had only one publication each. There were, however, 5 authors with 142, 92, 76, 71 and 41 related publications. Conclusions: It is clear that a part of this productivity is written by first authors with no previous engagement with related research and lacking colleagues or mentors involved with microbiome/probiotics research to support them as senior authors.

We evaluated progress towards animal biodiversity research in Georgia, a key area in the Caucasus biodiversity hotspot. By reviewing recently (1990-2018) published articles in all areas of animal diversity research, we unmasked the trends in biodiversity inventory, ecological and biogeographical studies, and conservation issues in Georgia. We concluded that species inventory and biodiversity research in Georgia has significantly increased during the last ten years, however the rate and extent of investigation is far from satisfactory. Major gaps remain in all branches of animal diversity research in Georgia, and consequently existing knowledge is inadequate to address modern challenges related to species and ecosystem conservation. We urge local governmental authorities and international scientific societies to support development of stronger research facilities and cultivate interest in biodiversity inventory and research in Georgia as an important step towards maintaining globally important biodiversity in the Caucasus.

A global event such as the COVID-19 crisis presents new, often unexpected responses that are fascinating to investigate from both, scientific and social standpoints. Despite several documented similarities, the Coronavirus pandemic is clearly distinct from the 1918 flu pandemic in terms of our exponentially increased, almost instantaneous ability to access/share information, offering an unprecedented opportunity to visualise rippling effects of global events across space and time. Personal devices provide “big data” on people’s movement, the environment and economic trends, while access to the unprecedented flurry in scientific publications and media posts provides a measure of the response of the educated world to the crisis. Most bibliometric (co-authorship, co-citation, or bibliographic coupling) analyses ignore the time dimension, but COVID-19 has made it possible to perform a detailed temporal investigation into the pandemic. Here, we report a comprehensive network analysis based on more than 20000 published documents on viral epidemics, authored by over 75,000 individuals from 140 nations in the past one year of the crisis. In contrast to the 1918 flu pandemic, access to published data over the past two decades enabled a comparison of publishing trends between the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and those of the 2003 SARS epidemic, to study changes in thematic foci and societal pressures dictating research over the course of a crisis.

Disputes on authorships or the order of authors on publications are among the most common conflicts in science, particularly where multi-author papers have become the norm. Here, I propose an adaptable and generalizable method to rationalize and democratize decisions about authorships, which can be applied in diverse scientific areas. In the process, the authors of a manuscript collect, discuss, score, and weight their contributions to the final manuscript. The decision process is assisted by a simple spreadsheet-based “authorship matrix”, which helps to break down the complexity of different contributions and their importance. The matrix generates a score s describing the percentage of the author’s total contributions and can be used to determine authorship and their order. The transparency and simplicity score s can reduce conflicts and thus increase productivity in collaborations.