31 December 2016

2016 was the best year ever for Marmorkrebs research

And it was the best by a long, long ways.

There are not only more papers, but they are coming from more places, too. In the early 2000s, papers were almost exclusively from western Europe and particularly Germany. Now, eastern Europe and Japan are regularly publishing Marmorkrebs papers in addition to the more established western European and American research programs. And the mix of papers is broad, too, with research on Marmorkrebs as invasive species, cellular biology, and behaviour.

Since I started this blog, it’s been a tradition for me to have a graph showing how many papers on Marmorkrebs were published compared to previous years. But making this year’s graph was trickier than before, because there are more kinds of research products out there than before.

In the past, I’ve included journal articles and book chapters. But by this year, I’ve been blogging pre-prints, master’s theses, and conference abstracts in addition to regular old articles and chapters. I’ve thought about whether to include these research products, and decided to include journal articles and book chapters only. In theory, pre-prints and master’s theses should be published later, so excluding them avoids the problem of inflating the publication rates.

As I noted last year, I also had the confusion of a book published in 2015 that had a 2016 cover date (Freshwater Crayfish, which I was involved with). Those book chapters are included in 2016, which bumps up the total for the year considerably. But 2016 would still be the best year ever for Marmorkrebs research even if if you removed the seven Freshwater Crayfish chapters from the total.

The book publication does mean that it will be hard for 2017 to top 2016 in the number of crayfish papers. The overall trend, however, shows no signs of flattening.

Related posts

2008 was the best year ever for Marmorkrebs research
2009 was tied for the best year ever in Marmorkrebs research
2010 was the best year ever for Marmorkrebs research
2011 was not the best year ever for Marmorkrebs research
2012 was an average year for Marmorkrebs research
2013 was the second best year ever for Marmorkrebs research
2014 was a good year for Marmorkrebs research
2015 was the best year ever for Marmorkrebs research

No comments: