ArticleBriefings in functional genomics2017
Goodbye genome paper, hello genome report: the increasing popularity of 'genome announcements' and their impact on science.
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.
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.
- Press release guide for genomic research and medicine: a framework co-developed with public contributors in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- iNaturalist is an open science resource for ecological genomics by enabling rapid and tractable records of initial observations of sequenced biological samples.Biology letters · 2023Article
- The genome paper is dead, long live the genome paper!EMBO reports · 2022Article
- Revisiting published genomes with fresh eyes and new data: Revising old sequencing data can yield unexpected insights and identify errors.EMBO reports · 2019Article
- The Nothoaspis amazoniensis Complete Mitogenome: A Comparative and Phylogenetic Analysis.Veterinary sciences · 2018Article
- Genomic repeats, misassembly and reannotation: a case study with long-read resequencing of Porphyromonas gingivalis reference strains.BMC genomics · 2018Article
- Comparative immunogenomics of molluscs.Developmental and comparative immunology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.