ReviewMissouri medicine
Measuring academic productivity and changing definitions of scientific impact.
Review in Missouri medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The tragedy of the biodiversity data commons: a data impediment creeping nigher?Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018Pooled it
- Network inequality through preferential attachment, triadic closure, and homophily.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Examining gender and ethnic disparities in scientific authorship to promote a culture of equity, diversity and inclusion at a university school of public health.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The role of information science within the clinical translational science ecosystem.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Evidence-based approaches for promoting gender equity in global mental health research: Study protocol for social network analysis of researchers in Nepal.SSM. Mental health · 2021Article
- Identification of influential users on Twitter: A novel weighted correlated influence measure for Covid-19.Chaos, solitons, and fractals · 2020Article
- Identification of COVID-19 Spreaders Using Multiplex Networks Approach.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2020Article
- Improved collective influence of finding most influential nodes based on disjoint-set reinsertion.Scientific reports · 2018Article
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
Abstract
This manuscript provides a brief overview of the history of communication of scientific research and reporting of scientific research impact outcomes. Current day practices are outlined along with examples of how organizations and libraries are providing tools to evaluate and document the impact of scientific research to provide a meaningful narrative suitable for a variety of purposes and audiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25438359PMC4983716What 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.