Scholarship: Beyond the paper.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The changing landscape of scientific communication: open access, predatory journals and the near future.Journal of nephrology · 2023
   Article
2. How failure to falsify in high-volume science contributes to the replication crisis.eLife · 2022
   Article
3. Forecasting the future of library and information science and its sub-fields.Scientometrics · 2021
   Article
4. Recent trends in the use of social media in parasitology and the application of alternative metrics.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2021
   Article
5. The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities.F1000Research · 2020
   Article
6. Science-graphic art partnerships to increase research impact.Communications biology · 2019
   Article
7. Academic information on Twitter: A user survey.PloS one · 2018
   Article
8. Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in Ecology and Conservation.PeerJ · 2018
   Article
9. Estimated effects of implementing an open access policy for grantees at a private foundation.PeerJ · 2017
   Article
10. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017
    Review
11. Integrative biological simulation praxis: Considerations from physics, philosophy, and data/model curation practices.Cellular logistics · 2017
    Article
12. Exploring the potential of public proteomics data.Proteomics · 2016
    Review
13. Assessing Individual Intellectual Output in Scientific Research: Mexico's National System for Evaluating Scholars Performance in the Humanities and the Behavioral Sciences.PloS one · 2016
    Article
14. Twitter Predicts Citation Rates of Ecological Research.PloS one · 2016
    Article
15. The social media index: measuring the impact of emergency medicine and critical care websites.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2015
    Article
16. Multilinguismo nas ciências ambientais: Ahora ya! (Multilingualism in environmental sciences: it's about time!).Ambio · 2014
    Article
17. An online database for plant image analysis software tools.Plant methods · 2013
    Article
18. Expert failure: re-evaluating research assessment.PLoS biology · 2013
    Article
19. We need negative metrics too.Nature · 2013
    Article
20. Journal publishing: the changing landscape.The Indian journal of medical research · 2013
    Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as