Skip to main content

Tag: publishing

CIMMYT scientists recognized for significant research impact

Written by Julian Bañuelos-Uribe on . Posted in News.

CIMMYT applies high quality science to develop more resilient agrifood systems. This year three scientists from CIMMYT are included in Clarivate’s 2023 Analysis of the most highly cited academic papers.

Jill Cairns participates at a plenary session. (Photo: Alfonso Cortés/CIMMYT)

While CIMMYT’s mission does explicitly require academic publication from its scientists, “the recognition reflects extensive networking with academia, opening doors for new technologies to benefit resource-poor farmers and consumers as well as lending scientific kudos to CIMMYT and underpinning fundraising efforts,” says Distinguished Scientist and Head of Wheat Physiology, Matthew Reynolds.

Maize Physiologist Jill Cairns and collaborators spearheaded the application of high throughput phenotyping for maize-breeding in sub-Saharan Africa, which she says, “would not have been possible without involving leading academic experts like JL Araus at Barcelona University.”

José Crossa chairs the session: adding value to phenotypic data. (Photo: Alfonso Cortés/CIMMYT)

Biometrician and Distinguished Scientist José Crossa has pioneered wheat genetic analysis and use of artificial intelligence to solve crop research questions. “With machine learning tools like Deep Learning, there is a golden opportunity to understand the many complex dimensions of crop adaptation, so data-driven breeding models will have the necessary precision to target complex traits,” he explains. Crossa is widely respected by leading academics in biometrics for his insights on bridging statistical theory to solve real world problems.

Reynolds has built initiatives like the Heat and Drought Wheat Improvement Consortium (HeDWIC) and the International Wheat Yield Partnership (IWYP) that transfer cutting-edge technologies—from many of the best academic institutions in the world—to application in breeding, helping to widen wheat gene pools globally.

Matthew Reynolds speaks at a workshop. (Photo: Alfonso Cortés/CIMMYT)

All three scientists achieved the same recognition last year. As in 2022, Reynolds was awarded for his contribution to scientific literature in plant and animal sciences, while Cairns and Crossa were awarded for their contributions to scientific literature across several fields of research (cross fields).

Since 2001, Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list has identified global research scientists and social scientists who have demonstrated significant and broad influence in their field(s) of research. It recognizes exceptional research performance demonstrated by the production of multiple papers that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and year, according to the Web of Science citation indexing service.

In 2023, the list recognizes 6,849 individuals from more than 1,300 institutions across 67 countries and regions.

CIMMYT scientists rank in top 1% of highly cited papers

Written by Sarah McLaughlin on . Posted in News.

Jill Cairns in front of CIMMYT headquarters. (Photo: Sam Storr/CIMMYT)

Three scientists from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) are included in Clarivate’s 2022 Analysis of the most highly cited academic papers.

Maize Physiologist Jill Cairns, Distinguished Scientist and Head of Wheat Physiology Matthew Reynolds, and Biometrician José Crossa, all from CIMMYT, were recognized in the 2022 analysis.

Jose Crossa chairing a session on adding value to phenotypic data. (Photo: Alfonso Cortés/CIMMYT)

This year, 7,255 Highly Cited Researcher (HCR) designations were issued to 6,938 individuals globally. The award is given to scientists with papers that rank in the top 1% by citations. Matthew was awarded for his contribution to scientific literature in plant and animal sciences, while José and Jill were awarded for their contributions to scientific literature across several fields of research (cross fields).

Of the world’s population of scientists and social scientists, Highly Cited Researchers are 1 in 1,000.

The analysis highlights disparities in the locations of top cited scientists. For example, 82.9% of recipients are from just ten countries and regions, out of a possible 70, and 71.4% are from the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia. While the recognition is only given to individual scientists, Matthew, José, and Jill’s success is related to strong scientific collaborations worldwide.

Matthew Reynolds at IWC9 in Sydney, Australia. (Photo: Julie Mollins)

How to get your high-impact research published in leading journals: top tips from the Senior Editor of Nature Genetics

Written by on . Posted in Features.

At CIMMYT’s Science Week 2018, Nature Genetics Senior Editor Catherine Potenski spoke on how to publish plant genomics research that has broad, novel impact.

Catherine Potenski, Senior Editor of Nature Genetics, talks to participants of CIMMYT's Science Week on June 26, 2018. (Photo: Alfonso Cortés/CIMMYT)
Catherine Potenski, Senior Editor of Nature Genetics, talks to participants of CIMMYT’s Science Week on June 26, 2018. (Photo: Alfonso Cortés/CIMMYT)

Having research that is high-impact is not only critical to doing excellent science that has meaning, but also a premier way to let the research community know what you are doing and reach a broader audience, according to Catherine Potenski, Senior Editor at Nature Genetics, one of the more than 70 high-quality academic journals of publishing company Springer Nature.

“Plant genomics is an exciting field that is a priority for Nature Genetics given climate change and other challenges,” said Potenski. “We look for studies with novelty, a genetics scope and resource value.”

Nature Genetics is highly selective and publishes approximately 200 papers per year. Potenski wants to make the editorial review process more productive and simple for researchers so they can share their best work.

“You should organize your paper to highlight the impact of the findings and write a cover letter that places your work in context, highlighting what gap of knowledge it fills and how others will use this research,” explained Potenski. In addition, scientists should target the right journal for their research. In case of doubt, they can send a pre-submission inquiry and work with editors.

Impact is not always immediate, and the impact factor is not necessarily a good or proven metric. “The first CRISPR articles published in the early 2000s are now very impactful, but nobody knew the impact they would have then. Just because it is not in a high-impact journal, it does not mean it is not high-impact,” she said.

Potenski shared the six questions plant researchers should ask themselves when submitting research to Nature Genetics.

  1. Is my main approach genetic?

Your main analyses should be based on genetic screens, Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) mapping, genome re-sequencing or other genetic approaches. If the main analysis of a paper is in transcriptomics, imaging or biochemistry, this could be considered off scope (but fine if they are secondary analyses).

  1. Are the findings highly novel?

Your research should reflect a new method or finding that is really groundbreaking. Findings that just provide insight into a known process, are confirmatory or incremental do not meet Nature’s standards. If the finding is only new for a specific crop, that might also not be sufficiently novel.

  1. Is there a large user group for the data?

Bigger is usually always better; you want your research to apply to or benefit as many people as possible. If the crop you are studying is widely consumed like wheat, or you have a large study scope such as large-scale GWAS (Genome-Wide Association Study) analysis, that will impact many more people than if you are studying watermelons using single QTL mapping.

  1. Is this a very large or unique dataset?

You want large, high-quality datasets and analyses that are unique and other groups cannot easily repeat. Ideally this leads to a new approach in your field. Data that are open and easily available, and studies using the latest technologies also get priority.

  1. Do the findings provide biological insights?

You want people reading your study to learn something new about plant biology. Instead of merely reporting domestication patterns, you want something new about the mechanisms of evolution or adaptation. Editors look for comprehensive, molecular mechanistic insight into the processes studied.

  1. Is there evidence for crop improvement?

Editors prioritize studies with potential for crop improvement, especially in the context of climate change and food security. You want your research to be demonstrated in a crop plant, ideally in the physical plant and not in a model simulation.