Background: ‘Co-production’ is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to ‘map’ this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.<br />Key messages<ul><li>The paper identifies five meanings of co-production: understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.</li><br /><li>Co-production is a multi-level phenomenon occurring at the level of socio-political systems, the level of institutions, and the level of situated practices.</li><br /><li>The paper identifies a need for definitional transparency and cross-disciplinary learning about co-production.</li></ul>

ObjectiveTo examine how the first randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease were interpreted in reviews of the literature prior to the National Institutes of Health consensus conference in 1984.DesignClaim-specific citation network analysis was used to study the network of citations between reviews and RCTs over a defined period (1969–1984). RCTs were identified and classified according to whether their conclusions supported or opposed the use of dietary fat modification/restriction in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Each review published in this period that cited any of the RCTs was classified as supportive, neutral, or unsupportive to the use of dietary fat modification based on a quotation analysis of its evaluation of the findings of these RCTs. Citation bias and underutilisation were detected by applying a comparative density measure, in-degree centrality, and out-degree in a series of sub-graph analyses.ResultsIn total, 66 unique publications were identified (four RCTs—one supportive, three unsupportive; 62 reviews—28 supportive, 17 neutral, 17 unsupportive). On average, supportive reviews underutilised the available RCTs to a greater degree than other reviews. Amongst the supportive group, citation bias was common—23 (82%) reviews cited only the one RCT that was supportive.ConclusionMost reviews that disseminated a supportive evaluation of the results of RCTs in the context of secondary prevention cited only data that supported this position.

In this paper, we analyse the claim that oxytocin is a ‘social neuropeptide’. This claim originated from evidence that oxytocin was instrumental in the initiation of maternal behaviour and it was extended to become the claim that oxytocin has a key role in promoting social interactions between individuals. We begin by considering the structure of the scientific literature on this topic, identifying closely interconnected clusters of papers on particular themes. We then analyse this claim by considering evidence of four types as generated by these clusters: (i) mechanistic studies in animal models, designed to understand the pathways involved in the behavioural effects of centrally administered oxytocin; (ii) evidence from observational studies indicating an association between oxytocin signalling pathways and social behaviour; (iii) evidence from intervention studies, mainly involving intranasal oxytocin administration; and (iv) evidence from translational studies of patients with disorders of social behaviour. We then critically analyse the most highly cited papers in each segment of the evidence; we conclude that, if these represent the best evidence, then the evidence for the claim is weak. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Interplays between oxytocin and other neuromodulators in shaping complex social behaviours’.

In 2002, Gainer et al 1 described the hypothalamic-neurohypophysial system, comprising the neurones that secrete oxytocin and vasopressin from the posterior pituitary, as "a veritable 'Rosetta Stone' for neuroendocrinology and neuroscience". Amongst the "many seminal findings" that came from this system, they highlighted the discovery and characterisation of neuropeptides, 2 the development of peptide agonists and antagonists, 3 the proposal of the prohormone concept, 4 the characterisation of bursting pacemaker activity in central nervous system neurones, 5 and the demonstrations of neuropeptide secretion from dendrites, 6 of glial-neuronal plasticity 7 and that peptides can produce complex behaviours. 8 We felt prompted to ask whether this system might also be valuable for understanding how scientific understanding develops. We sought to trace how knowledge about oxytocin has changed and is changing, and how that understanding varies in the works of different scientists pursuing different research objectives. To do this, we use a systematic search to capture a large part of the oxytocin literature, and we use citation network analysis to identify its structure, clustering papers according to their citation links.We begin with a brief account of the beginning of the oxytocin field. We then analyse each cluster to identify its topic focus, and show how the field has evolved since 1950, using bibliometric data to identify highly-cited papers. We do not assume that high citation counts define the best papers, but only that they indicate the changing foci of scientific activity. By this, we sketch out an outline of a history of oxytocin research -of the different perspectives of what oxytocin is and does, and what some might hope it might do. Our aim is to provide a sense of the diverse research questions, ideas, and findings that have motivated, and continue to motivate, research on oxytocin. And, by examining the publication and citation dynamics of this field over the last 70 years, we hope to help the reader to better understand the publication and citation metrics that continue to pervade and distort academia. 9 | ME THODSOxytocin was the first peptide hormone whose sequence was established, and the first to be synthesised; its gene was amongst the first mammalian genes to be sequenced, 10 and it has been a

The 1970s saw a growing interest in the vasopressin−memory hypothesis, proposed by David de Wied and his collaborators in Utrecht. This rose to a peak in the 1980s that saw a flurry of papers published from diverse sources critical of the experimental foundations of this idea. In subsequent years, interest in this hypothesis declined markedly as shortcomings were recognized. Here, we study this debate using citation network analysis to identify the influential papers in this debate and the citation links between them. The issues raised have contemporary relevance to the current controversy about the interpretation of studies using intranasal oxytocin.

The history of genomic research on the pig (Sus scrofa)—as uncovered through archival research, oral histories, and the analysis of a quantitative dataset and co-authorship network—demonstrates the importance of two distinct genealogies. These consist of research programs focused on agriculturally oriented genetics, on the one hand, and systematics research concerned with evolution and diversity, on the other. The relative weight of these two modes of research shifted following the production of a reference genome for the species from 2006 to 2011. Before this inflection point, the research captured in our networks mainly involved intensive sequencing that concentrated primarily on increasing the resolution of genomic data both in particular regions and more widely across the genome. Sequencing practices later became more extensive, with greater focus on the generation and comparison of sequence data across and between populations. We explain these shifts in research modes as a function of the availability, circulation, distribution, and exchange of genomic tools and resources—including data and materials—concerning the pig in general, and increasingly for particular populations. Consequently, we describe the history of pig genomics as constituting a kind of bricolage, in which geneticists cobbled together resources to which they had access—often ones produced by them for other purposes—in pursuit of their research aims. The concept of bricolage adds to the thicker vision of genomics that we have shown throughout the special issue and further highlights the singularity of the dominant, thin narrative focused on the production of the human reference sequence at large-scale genome centers. This essay is part of a special issue entitled The Sequences and the Sequencers: A New Approach to Investigating the Emergence of Yeast, Human, and Pig Genomics, edited by Michael García-Sancho and James Lowe.

How biases, the desire for a good narrative, reliance on citation metrics, and other problems undermine confidence in modern science. Modern science is built on experimental evidence, yet scientists are often very selective in deciding what evidence to use and tend to disagree about how to interpret it. In The Matter of Facts, Gareth and Rhodri Leng explore how scientists produce and use evidence. They do so to contextualize an array of problems confronting modern science that have raised concerns about its reliability: the widespread use of inappropriate statistical tests, a shortage of replication studies, and a bias in both publishing and citing “positive” results. Before these problems can be addressed meaningfully, the authors argue, we must understand what makes science work and what leads it astray. The myth of science is that scientists constantly challenge their own thinking. But in reality, all scientists are in the business of persuading other scientists of the importance of their own ideas, and they do so by combining reason with rhetoric. Often, they look for evidence that will support their ideas, not for evidence that might contradict them; often, they present evidence in a way that makes it appear to be supportive; and often, they ignore inconvenient evidence. In a series of essays focusing on controversies, disputes, and discoveries, the authors vividly portray science as a human activity, driven by passion as well as by reason. By analyzing the fluidity of scientific concepts and the dynamic and unpredictable development of scientific fields, the authors paint a picture of modern science and the pressures it faces.

Between its origin in the 1950s and its endorsement by a consensus conference in 1984, the diet–heart hypothesis was the object of intense controversy. Paul et al. (1963) is a highly-cited prospective cohort study that reported findings inconvenient for this hypothesis, reporting no association between diet and heart disease; however, many other findings were also reported. By citation context and network analysis of 343 citing papers, I show how Paul et al. was cited in the twenty years after its publication. Generally, different findings were cited by different communities focussing on different risk-factors; communities established by either research foci title terms or via cluster membership as established via modularity maximisation. The most frequently cited findings were the significant associations between heart disease; and serum cholesterol (n=85), blood pressure (n=57), and coffee consumption (n=54). The lack of association between diet and heart disease was cited in just 41 papers. Yet, no single empirical finding was referred to in more than 25% of the citing papers. This raises questions about the value of inferring impact from citation counts alone, and raises problems for studies using such counts to measure citation bias. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00154