The authorship policies of scientific journals often assume that in order to be able to properly place credit and responsibility for the content of a collaborative paper we should be able to distinguish the contributions of the various individuals involved. Hence, many journals have introduced a requirement for author contribution statements aimed at making it easier to place credit and responsibility on individual scientists. We argue that from a purely descriptive point of view the practices of collaborating scientists are at odds with the requirement for author contribution statements. We also argue that from a normative point of view the authorship policies may be unnecessary. Our arguments draw on an examination of 35 years of retraction notices in the journal Science.

A bibliometric analysis of research articles published on water-use efficiency was performed using the Web of Science database and evaluated. Journal titles, publication years, subject categories, keywords and countries publishing were obtained. A number of 2077 papers were retrieved, two-thirds of them published in the last decade. The articles were published in 439 journals, with Agricultural Water Management, Agronomy Journal, Crop Science, Field Crops Research and Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences the most productive. Most of the leading productive journals have Impact Factors in the top quartiles of the Journal Citation Reports. Agronomy, Plant Sciences, Water Resources and Agriculture Multidisciplinary were the most common journal subject categories, indicating a wide diversity of research fields ascribed to this topic. The predominant key words and phrases used were growth, ‘carbon isotope discrimination’, yield, photosynthesis, ‘gas exchange’, evapotranspiration and ‘stomatal conductance’. The productivity ranking for countries was headed by China (456 papers), followed by the USA (410), Australia (176) and India (165). A content analysis of the papers made identification of the key issues of greatest scientific concern possible, as well as their evolution over time. The most cited papers relate to physiological aspects, but also important studies on experimental biology, drought resistance, effects of climate, crop production and ecology, among others.

From the very outset of scientific Psychology, psychologists have shown interest for drugs and their effects on behavior. This has given rise to numerous contributions, mostly in the form of Psychopharmacology publications. The aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate these contributions and compare them with other academic disciplines related to Psychopharmacology. Using the PubMed database, we retrieved information about articles from 15 journals included in the Pharmacology and Pharmacy category of the Journal Citation Reports database for a 21-year period (1987 to 2007). There were 37540 articles which about 52% were represented by 3 journals. About 70% of psychology publications were represented by 2 of these journals. Psychology departments accounted for the 11% of the published papers, which places Psychology third behind Psychiatry and Pharmacology, which contributed to 22.69 and 13% respectively. Psychology contributed to the greatest number of studies in 3 journals, second in 3 and third in 8. This report represents the first effort to explore the contribution of academic Psychology to the multidisciplinary science of psychopharmacology. Although leaders of production of psychopharmacology research were from Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Psychology departments are an important source of studies and thus of knowledge in the field of Psychopharmacology

Astrobiology's goal of promoting interdisciplinary research is an attempt to reverse a trend that began two centuries ago with the formation of the first specialized scientific disciplines. We have examined this era of discipline formation in order to make a comparison with the situation today in astrobiology. Will astrobiology remain interdisciplinary or is it becoming yet another specialty?

As a case study, we have investigated effects on the scientific literature when a specialized community is formed by analyzing the citations within papers published during 1802–1856 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Phil. Trans.), the most important ‘generalist’ journal of its day, and Transactions of the Geological Society of London (Trans. Geol. Soc.), the first important disciplinary journal in the sciences. We find that these two journals rarely cited each other, and papers published in Trans. Geol. Soc. cited fewer interdisciplinary sources than did geology papers in Phil. Trans. After geology had become established as a successful specialized discipline, geologists returned to publishing papers in Phil. Trans., but they wrote in the new, highly specialized style developed in Trans. Geol. Soc. They had succeeded in not only creating a new scientific discipline, but also a new way of doing science with its own modes of research and communication.

A similar citation analysis was applied to papers published over the period 2001–2008 in the contemporary journals Astrobiology and the International Journal of Astrobiology to test the hypothesis that astrobiologists are in the early stages of creating their own specialized community. Although still too early to reliably detect any but the largest trends, there is no evidence yet that astrobiologists are drifting into their own isolated discipline. Instead, to date they appear to remain interdisciplinary.