ArticleInfection and immunity2014
Specialized science.
Article in Infection and immunity, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- The value of learned societies in the biological sciences: benefits, threats, and futures.BMC biology · 2026Review
- The evolution of SSRI research: trajectories of knowledge domains across four decades.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- The process of racial discrimination: towards a unified theory.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Review
- Article
- Scientometric analysis of research productivity in clinical pharmacy and practice: a 12-year review at a Middle Eastern university.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Scientist engagement and the knowledge-action gap.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Review
- Critical reflections of postgraduate researchers on a collaborative interdisciplinary research project.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2023Article
- Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?Brain communications · 2023Review
- The Application of 'Elite Interviewing' Methodology in Transdisciplinary Research: a Record of Process and Lessons Learned during a 3-Year Pilot in Urban Planetary Health Research.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2021Article
- Shorter distances between papers over time are due to more cross-field references and increased citation rate to higher-impact papers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- A Temperament-Attachment-Mentalization-Based (TAM) Theory of Personality and Its Disorders.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Fear paradigms: The times they are a-changin'.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2018Article
- Review
- Cannabis and the Anxiety of Fragmentation-A Systems Approach for Finding an Anxiolytic Cannabis Chemotype.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Article
- What is open peer review? A systematic review.F1000Research · 2017Article
- Article
- Revolutionary Science.mBio · 2016Article
- Structure and Evolution of Mediterranean Forest Research: A Science Mapping Approach.PloS one · 2016Article
- Life Science's Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the body of scientific knowledge in a discipline increases, there is pressure for specialization. Fields spawn subfields that then become entities in themselves that promote further specialization. The process by which scientists join specialized groups has remarkable similarities to the guild system of the middle ages. The advantages of specialization of science include efficiency, the establishment of normative standards, and the potential for greater rigor in experimental research. However, specialization also carries risks of monopoly, monotony, and isolation. The current tendency to judge scientific work by the impact factor of the journal in which it is published may have roots in overspecialization, as scientists are less able to critically evaluate work outside their field than before. Scientists in particular define themselves through group identity and adopt practices that conform to the expectations and dynamics of such groups. As part of our continuing analysis of issues confronting contemporary science, we analyze the emergence and consequences of specialization in science, with a particular emphasis on microbiology, a field highly vulnerable to balkanization along microbial phylogenetic boundaries, and suggest that specialization carries significant costs. We propose measures to mitigate the detrimental effects of scientific specialism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.