The history of science shows a shift from single-investigator 'little science' to increasingly large, expensive, multinational, interdisciplinary and interdependent 'big science'. In physics and allied fields this shift has been well documented, but the rise of collaboration in the life sciences and its effect on scientific work and knowledge has received little attention. Research in biology exhibits different historical trajectories and organisation of collaboration in field and laboratory - differences still visible in contemporary collaborations such as the Census of Marine Life and the Human Genome Project. We employ these case studies as strategic exemplars, supplemented with existing research on collaboration in biology, to expose the different motives, organisational forms and social dynamics underpinning contemporary large-scale collaborations in biology and their relations to historical patterns of collaboration in the life sciences. We find the interaction between research subject, research approach as well as research organisation influencing collaboration patterns and the work of scientists.

We researchers aim to read and write publications containing high-quality prose, exceptional data, arguments, and conclusions, embedded firmly in existing literature while making abundantly clear what we are adding to it. Through the inclusion of references, we demonstrate the foundation upon which our studies rest as well as how they are different from previous work. That difference can include literature we dispute or disprove, arguments or claims we expand, and new ideas, suggestions, and hypotheses we base upon published work. This leads to the question of how to decide which study or author to cite, and in what way. Writing manuscripts requires, among so much more, decisions on which previous studies to include and exclude, as well as decisions on how exactly that inclusion takes place. A wellreferenced manuscript places the authors' argument in the proper knowledge context and thereby can support its novelty, its value, and its visibility. Citations link one study to others, creating a web of knowledge that carries meaning and allows other researchers to identify work as relevant in general and relevant to them in particular. On the one hand, citation practices create value by tying together relevant scientific contributions, regardless of whether they are large or small. In the process, they confer or withhold credit, contributing to the relative status of published work in the literature. On the other hand, citation practices exist in the context of current regimes of evaluating science. While it may go unnoticed in daily writing practices, the act of including a single reference in a study is thus subject to value-based criteria internal to science (e.g., content, relevance, credit) and external to science (e.g., accountability, performance). Accordingly, referencing is not a neutral act. Citations are a form of scientific currency, actively conferring or denying value. Citing certain sources-and especially citing them often-legitimises ideas, solidifies theories, and establishes claims as facts. References also create transparency by allowing others to retrace your steps. Referencing is thus a moral issue, an issue upon which multiple values in science converge. Citing competitors adds to their profiles, citing papers from a specific journal adds to its impact factor, citing supervisors or lab mates helps build your own profile, and citing the right papers helps establish your familiarity with the field. All of these translate into pressures on scientists to cite specific sources, from peers, editors, and others. Fong and Wilhite demonstrate the abundance of so-called coercive citation practices [1]. Also, citation-based metrics have proliferated as proxies for quality and impact over the years [2-4], only to be currently subjected to significant and highly relevant critique [5-8]. To cite well, or to reference responsibly, is thus a matter of concern to all scientists. Here, I offer 10 simple rules for responsible referencing. Scientists as authors produce references, and as readers and reviewers, they assess and evaluate references. Through this symmetrical relationship to literature that all scientists share, they take responsibility for tying together all knowledge it contains. Producing and evaluating references are, however, distinct processes, warranting different responsibilities. Respecting this dual relationship researchers have

Despite the well-developed Chinese National Immunization Program, vaccine hesitancy in China is rising. As part of the response, Chinese scholars have studied determinants and proposed solutions to vaccination hesitancy. We performed a scoping review of Chinese literature (2007–2019), drawn from four Chinese databases. We mapped relevant information and presented a systemic account of the proposed determinants and responses to vaccine hesitancy in China. We identified 77 relevant studies that reveal four approaches to vaccine hesitancy. Most Chinese studies define vaccine hesitancy as a problem of vaccine safety and vaccine incident response and place accountability on the level of governance, such as regulation deficits and inappropriate crisis management. A first minority of studies tied vaccination hesitancy to unprofessional medical conduct and called for additional resources and enhanced physician qualifications. A second minority of studies positioned vaccination hesitancy as a problem of parental belief and pointed to the role of media, proposing enhanced communication and education. Chinese literature ties vaccine hesitancy primarily to vaccine safety and medical conduct. Compared to international research, parental concerns are underrepresented. The Chinese context of vaccination scandals notably frames the discussion of vaccination hesitancy and potential solutions, which stresses the importance of considering vaccination hesitancy in specific social and political contexts.

The increasing pursuit of replicable research and actual replication of research is a political project that articulates a very specific technology of accountability for science. This project was initiated in response to concerns about the openness and trustworthiness of science. Though applicable and valuable in many fields, here we argue that this value cannot be extended everywhere, since the epistemic content of fields, as well as their accountability infrastructures, differ. Furthermore, we argue that there are limits to replicability across all fields; but in some fields, including parts of the humanities, these limits severely undermine the value of replication to account for the value of research.

Nutrition science has enriched our understanding of how to stay healthy by producing valuable knowledge about the interaction of nutrients, food, and the human body. Nutrition science also has raised societal awareness about the links between food consumption and well-being, and provided the basis for food regulations and dietary guidelines. Its collaborative and interdisciplinary research has accomplished much, scientifically and socially. Despite this, nutrition science appears to be in crisis and is currently confronted with a public reluctance to trust nutritional insights. Though deflating trust is a general phenomenon surrounding the scientific community, its impact on nutrition science is particularly strong because of the crucial role of nutrition in everyone’s daily life. We, a Dutch collective of nutritionists, medical doctors, philosophers and sociologists of science (http://www.nutritionintransition.nl), have diagnosed that nutrition science is meeting inherent boundaries. This hampers conceptual and methodological progress and the translation of novel insights into societal benefit and trust. In other words, nutrition science is facing limitations to its capability and credibility, impeding its societal value. We take up the challenge to halt the threatening erosion of nutrition science’s capability and credibility, and explore a way forward. We analyse limitations to capability and credibility, then argue that nutrition science is caught in a vicious circle, and end by offering some suggestions to transcend the limitations and escape the current deadlock. We invite nutritional experts as well as scholars from adjacent disciplines to engage in the discussion.