ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2014
A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What we could not have known: ovarian cycles, follicle development, and the signature of life.Molecular human reproduction · 2026Review
- Quantifying the growth of oncofertility.Biology of reproduction · 2018Article
- Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur success as a field and as individuals in reproductive science and medicine relies on our ability to produce high quality work that has broad visibility and impact. A common metric for assessing such success is the quantity of publications that are published in journals with high impact factors. It is unclear, however, how frequently work related to reproductive science and medicine actually appears in what are considered the highest impact journals.
methodsTo address this gap in knowledge, we first determined how the field of reproductive biology in general compared to other research areas in terms of composite journal impact factor. Second, using a targeted search approach in the PubMed database, we examined the relationship between a journal's impact factor and the number of reproductive research articles published per journal issue.
resultsWe found that compared to other major scientific disciplines, our field lacks journals with impact factors above 4. In addition, primary original research articles on reproduction-irrespective of male or female search terms-do not appear often in high impact journals. Instead, there is an increased percentage of secondary reproductive literature in high impact journals compared to topic-specific journals of lower impact.
conclusionsThere are likely several explanations for why reproductive science and medicine has low visibility, including the field's small relative size, its lack of a specific disease and associated strong advocacy, and its surrounding social, ethical, and political unease. Nevertheless, there are concrete actions we can take to minimize the role of impact factor in our evaluation while simultaneously increasing influence through global awareness of the importance and need for reproductive research.
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.