ArticleF1000Research2015
The Inherent Drawbacks of the Pressure to Publish in Health Sciences: Good or Bad Science.
Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The natural selection of good science.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this "parasitic" publishing model.Forensic sciences research · 2021Review
- COVID-19 research: pandemicForensic sciences research · 2020Article
- Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.PloS one · 2019Article
- While it is not deliberate, much of today's biomedical research contains logical and technical flaws, showing a need for corrective action.International journal of medical sciences · 2018Review
- Dental publishing: Peer review reviewed.British dental journal · 2016Article
- Teaching and learning based on peer review: a realistic approach in forensic sciences.F1000Research · 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
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific publications- it is the era of "hunting the article". This commentary discusses the drawbacks of the pressure to publish that certainly contribute to the 'dark side' of science. In fact, health science career progression greatly relies on the number of scientific publications a researcher has, and in many cases these may be more valorized than the health services provided. Of course, scientific publications help to develop the skills of health care professionals, but as Einstein highlighted " not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".
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.