Background: ‘Co-production’ is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to ‘map’ this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.<br />Key messages<ul><li>The paper identifies five meanings of co-production: understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.</li><br /><li>Co-production is a multi-level phenomenon occurring at the level of socio-political systems, the level of institutions, and the level of situated practices.</li><br /><li>The paper identifies a need for definitional transparency and cross-disciplinary learning about co-production.</li></ul>

In this paper, we analyse the claim that oxytocin is a ‘social neuropeptide’. This claim originated from evidence that oxytocin was instrumental in the initiation of maternal behaviour and it was extended to become the claim that oxytocin has a key role in promoting social interactions between individuals. We begin by considering the structure of the scientific literature on this topic, identifying closely interconnected clusters of papers on particular themes. We then analyse this claim by considering evidence of four types as generated by these clusters: (i) mechanistic studies in animal models, designed to understand the pathways involved in the behavioural effects of centrally administered oxytocin; (ii) evidence from observational studies indicating an association between oxytocin signalling pathways and social behaviour; (iii) evidence from intervention studies, mainly involving intranasal oxytocin administration; and (iv) evidence from translational studies of patients with disorders of social behaviour. We then critically analyse the most highly cited papers in each segment of the evidence; we conclude that, if these represent the best evidence, then the evidence for the claim is weak. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Interplays between oxytocin and other neuromodulators in shaping complex social behaviours’.

ObjectiveTo examine how the first randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease were interpreted in reviews of the literature prior to the National Institutes of Health consensus conference in 1984.DesignClaim-specific citation network analysis was used to study the network of citations between reviews and RCTs over a defined period (1969–1984). RCTs were identified and classified according to whether their conclusions supported or opposed the use of dietary fat modification/restriction in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Each review published in this period that cited any of the RCTs was classified as supportive, neutral, or unsupportive to the use of dietary fat modification based on a quotation analysis of its evaluation of the findings of these RCTs. Citation bias and underutilisation were detected by applying a comparative density measure, in-degree centrality, and out-degree in a series of sub-graph analyses.ResultsIn total, 66 unique publications were identified (four RCTs—one supportive, three unsupportive; 62 reviews—28 supportive, 17 neutral, 17 unsupportive). On average, supportive reviews underutilised the available RCTs to a greater degree than other reviews. Amongst the supportive group, citation bias was common—23 (82%) reviews cited only the one RCT that was supportive.ConclusionMost reviews that disseminated a supportive evaluation of the results of RCTs in the context of secondary prevention cited only data that supported this position.

In 2002, Gainer et al 1 described the hypothalamic-neurohypophysial system, comprising the neurones that secrete oxytocin and vasopressin from the posterior pituitary, as "a veritable 'Rosetta Stone' for neuroendocrinology and neuroscience". Amongst the "many seminal findings" that came from this system, they highlighted the discovery and characterisation of neuropeptides, 2 the development of peptide agonists and antagonists, 3 the proposal of the prohormone concept, 4 the characterisation of bursting pacemaker activity in central nervous system neurones, 5 and the demonstrations of neuropeptide secretion from dendrites, 6 of glial-neuronal plasticity 7 and that peptides can produce complex behaviours. 8 We felt prompted to ask whether this system might also be valuable for understanding how scientific understanding develops. We sought to trace how knowledge about oxytocin has changed and is changing, and how that understanding varies in the works of different scientists pursuing different research objectives. To do this, we use a systematic search to capture a large part of the oxytocin literature, and we use citation network analysis to identify its structure, clustering papers according to their citation links.We begin with a brief account of the beginning of the oxytocin field. We then analyse each cluster to identify its topic focus, and show how the field has evolved since 1950, using bibliometric data to identify highly-cited papers. We do not assume that high citation counts define the best papers, but only that they indicate the changing foci of scientific activity. By this, we sketch out an outline of a history of oxytocin research -of the different perspectives of what oxytocin is and does, and what some might hope it might do. Our aim is to provide a sense of the diverse research questions, ideas, and findings that have motivated, and continue to motivate, research on oxytocin. And, by examining the publication and citation dynamics of this field over the last 70 years, we hope to help the reader to better understand the publication and citation metrics that continue to pervade and distort academia. 9 | ME THODSOxytocin was the first peptide hormone whose sequence was established, and the first to be synthesised; its gene was amongst the first mammalian genes to be sequenced, 10 and it has been a

The 1970s saw a growing interest in the vasopressin−memory hypothesis, proposed by David de Wied and his collaborators in Utrecht. This rose to a peak in the 1980s that saw a flurry of papers published from diverse sources critical of the experimental foundations of this idea. In subsequent years, interest in this hypothesis declined markedly as shortcomings were recognized. Here, we study this debate using citation network analysis to identify the influential papers in this debate and the citation links between them. The issues raised have contemporary relevance to the current controversy about the interpretation of studies using intranasal oxytocin.