Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27339634›Full record

ArticleBriefings in functional genomics2017

Goodbye genome paper, hello genome report: the increasing popularity of 'genome announcements' and their impact on science.

David Roy Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in functional genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparative immunogenomics of molluscs.Developmental and comparative immunology · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David Roy Smith

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized genomics and altered the scientific publication landscape. Life-science journals abound with genome papers-peer-reviewed descriptions of newly sequenced chromosomes. Although they once filled the pages of Nature and Science, genome papers are now mostly relegated to journals with low-impact factors. Some have forecast the death of the genome paper and argued that they are using up valuable resources and not advancing science. However, the publication rate of genome papers is on the rise. This increase is largely because some journals have created a new category of manuscript called genome reports, which are short, fast-tracked papers describing a chromosome sequence(s), its GenBank accession number and little else. In 2015, for example, more than 2000 genome reports were published, and 2016 is poised to bring even more. Here, I highlight the growing popularity of genome reports and discuss their merits, drawbacks and impact on science and the academic publication infrastructure. Genome reports can be excellent assets for the research community, but they are also being used as quick and easy routes to a publication, and in some instances they are not peer reviewed. One of the best arguments for genome reports is that they are a citable, user-generated genomic resource providing essential methodological and biological information, which may not be present in the sequence database. But they are expensive and time-consuming avenues for achieving such a goal.

Indexed as

GenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPublishinggenome announcementgenome papergenome reportgenome sequencingpreprint serversscientific publishing

Identifiers

PMID27339634
PMCPMC5439286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.