Responsible indicators are crucial for research assessment and monitoring. Transparency and accuracy of indicators are required to make research assessment fair and ensure reproducibility. However, sometimes it is difficult to conduct or replicate studies based on indicators due to the lack of transparency in conceptualization and operationalization. In this paper, we review the different variants of the Probabilistic Affinity Index (PAI), considering both the conceptual and empirical underpinnings. We begin with a review of the historical development of the indicator and the different alternatives proposed. To demonstrate the utility of the indicator, we demonstrate the application of PAI to identifying preferred partners in scientific collaboration. A streamlined procedure is provided, to demonstrate the variations and appropriate calculations. We then compare the results of implementation for 5 specific countries involved in international scientific collaboration. Despite the different proposals on its calculation, we do not observe large differences between the PAI variants, particularly with respect to country size. As with any indicator, the selection of a particular variant is dependent on the research question. To facilitate appropriate use, we provide recommendations for the use of the indicator given specific contexts.@en

Research careers are typically envisioned as a single path in which a scientist starts as a member of a team working under the guidance of one or more experienced scientists and, if they are successful, ends with the individual leading their own research group and training future generations of scientists. Here we study the author contribution statements of published research papers in order to explore possible biases and disparities in career trajectories in science. We used Bayesian networks to train a prediction model based on a dataset of 70,694 publications from PLoS journals, which included 347,136 distinct authors and their associated contribution statements. This model was used to predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and to apply a robust archetypal analysis to profile scientists across four career stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. All three of the archetypes we found-leader, specialized, and supporting-were encountered for early-career and mid-career researchers. Junior researchers displayed only two archetypes (specialized, and supporting), as did late-career researchers (leader and supporting). Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tended to have longer careers than those assigned to the supporting archetype. We also observed consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belonged to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belonged to the specialized archetype, especially for early-career and mid-career researchers.@en