In order to be able to provide thorough and timely coverage on the most recent scientific research, science journalists frequently rely on embargoed information sent to them by publishers of scientific journals. In such embargo e-mails, publishers purposefully bring selected upcoming releases to the journalists’ attention a few days in advance of their publication. Little is known on how this early highlighting of certain research articles affects their later citations or altmetrics. We present an exploratory case study with the aim of assessing the effects of such promotion activities on scientific articles’ bibliometric and altmetric indicators. In a treatment–control design, we analyze citation counts and eight types of altmetrics of 715 articles published between 2016 and 2017 whose DOIs have been mentioned in embargo e-mails and compare these to articles from the same journal issues that have not been highlighted in embargo e-mails. Descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney-U tests reveal significant advantages for promoted articles across all regarded metrics three to four years after their publication. Particularly large differences can be seen regarding numbers of mentions in mainstream media, in blogs, on Twitter, and on Facebook. Our findings suggest that scholarly publishers exert significant influence over which research articles will receive attention and visibility in various (social) media. Also, regarding utilizations of metrics for evaluative purposes, the observed effects of promotional activities on indicators might constitute a factor of undesirable influence that currently does not receive the amount of consideration in scientometric assessments that it should receive.

Objective: The recurring phase model of team processes suggests the existence of a rhythm of team task accomplishment, which refers to a repeated sequence of transition and action phases over time. Drawing on this model, we provide the first empirical investigation of whether different types of teamwork rhythm emerge, whether the rhythm varies according to the type of task, and whether the rhythm is related to team performance. Method: We observed and videoed student teams (N = 48) working on two different tasks (a creative task and a construction task) in a laboratory setting. Team processes were coded and assigned to transition or action phases using a custom algorithm. The rhythm of teamwork for each team was determined using the four parameters of tempo, regularity of tempo, focus (transition vs. action), and variability of focus. Results: Latent profile analysis revealed three distinct rhythms of teamwork across both tasks: a slow and action-oriented rhythm, a fast and regular rhythm, and a changingfocus rhythm. The results also show that the majority of the teams (63.04%) changed rhythm type between the tasks. Moreover, for the creative task, a changing-focus rhythm was predictive of lower performance (g = 0.25-0.48), whereas for the construction task, no association was found between rhythm and performance. Conclusions: The study provides a methodological procedure for analyzing the rhythm of teamwork and offers some initial insights into the types of teamwork rhythms and their association with type of tasks and levels of performance. Highlights and Implications• We establish a methodological procedure for capturing the rhythm of teamwork, which emerges as a repeated sequence of transition and action phases when teams are working on a task.• Teams do not generally follow a single rhythm of transition and action phases but adapt teamwork rhythm according to the task they are working on.• Teamwork rhythm and team performance seem to be related in creative tasks.• Teams should be made aware of the importance of different rhythms of teamwork and trained to use different rhythms according to the demands of the particular task and situation.

No abstract