For two competing species, intraspecific competition must exceed interspecific competition for coexistence. To generalize this well-known criterion to multiple competing species, one must take into account both the distribution of interaction strengths and community structure. Here we derive a multispecies generalization of the two-species rule in the context of symmetric Lotka-Volterra competition and obtain explicit stability conditions for random competitive communities. We then explore the influence of community structure on coexistence. Results show that both the most and least stabilized cases have striking global structures, with a nested pattern emerging in both cases. The distribution of intraspecific coefficients leading to the most and least stabilized communities also follows a predictable pattern that can be justified analytically. In addition, we show that the size of the parameter space allowing for feasible communities always increases with the strength of intraspecific effects in a characteristic way that is independent of the interspecific interaction structure. We conclude by discussing possible extensions of our results to nonsymmetric competition.

International collaboration is becoming increasingly important for the advancement of science. To gain a more precise understanding of how factors such as international collaboration influence publication success, we divide publication success into two categories: journal placement and citation performance. Analyzing all papers published between 1996 and 2012 in eight disciplines, we find that those with more countries in their affiliations performed better in both categories. Furthermore, specific countries vary in their effects both individually and in combination. Finally, we look at the relationship between national output (in papers published) and input (in citations received) over the 17 years, expanding upon prior depictions by also plotting an expected proportion of citations based on Journal Placement. Discrepancies between this expectation and the realized proportion of citations illuminate trends in performance, such as the decline of the Global North in response to rapidly developing countries, especially China. Yet, most countries' show little to no discrepancy, meaning that, in most cases, citation proportion can be predicted by Journal Placement alone. This reveals an extreme asymmetry between the opinions of a few reviewers and the degree to which paper acceptance and citation rates influence career advancement.

Endophytes often have dramatic effects on their host plants. Characterizing the relationships among members of these communities has focused on identifying the effects of single microbes on their host, but has generally overlooked interactions among the myriad microbes in natural communities as well as potential higher-order interactions. Network analyses offer a powerful means for characterizing patterns of interaction among microbial members of the phytobiome that may be crucial to mediating its assembly and function. We sampled twelve endophytic communities, comparing patterns of niche overlap between coexisting bacteria and fungi to evaluate the effect of nutrient supplementation on local and global competitive network structure. We found that, despite differences in the degree distribution, there were few significant differences in the global network structure of niche-overlap networks following persistent nutrient amendment. Likewise, we found idiosyncratic and weak evidence for higher-order interactions regardless of nutrient treatment. This work provides a first-time characterization of niche-overlap network structure in endophytic communities and serves as a framework for higher-resolution analyses of microbial interaction networks as a consequence and a cause of ecological variation in microbiome function.

Scientists often perceive a trade-off between quantity and quality in scientific publishing: finite amounts of time and effort can be spent to produce few high-quality papers or subdivided to produce many papers of lower quality. Despite this perception, previous studies have indicated the opposite relationship, in which productivity (publishing more papers) is associated with increased paper quality (usually measured by citation accumulation). We examine this question in a novel way, comparing members of the National Academy of Sciences with themselves across years, and using a much larger dataset than previously analyzed. We find that a member’s most highly cited paper in a given year has more citations in more productive years than in in less productive years. Their lowest cited paper each year, on the other hand, has fewer citations in more productive years. To disentangle the effect of the underlying distributions of citations and productivities, we repeat the analysis for hypothetical publication records generated by scrambling each author’s citation counts among their publications. Surprisingly, these artificial histories re-create the above trends almost exactly. Put another way, the observed positive relationship between quantity and quality can be interpreted as a consequence of randomly drawing citation counts for each publication: more productive years yield higher-cited papers because they have more chances to draw a large value. This suggests that citation counts, and the rewards that have come to be associated with them, may be more stochastic than previously appreciated.