ArticleJournal of cell communication and signaling2017
The disastrous boomerang effects of "citation mania".
Article in Journal of cell communication and signaling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Academic Citation Partnership: A Predatory Practice that Undermines Scholarly Integrity.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- The driving forces behind the impressive progression of the journal of cell communication and signaling (JCCS).Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2021Review
- Three point six nine one.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2019Article
- Editorial.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2019Article
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
The recent publication of a commentary article by Dadkhah et al. (J Cell Commun Signal 11:181-185, 2017) which addressed issues raised by the citation of questionable scientific papers in current databases and the recent retraction of manuscripts dealing with the biological properties of the CCN1 protein by Lin et al. (J Biol Chem 291(53):27433, 2016) prompted us to examine how this situation reflects an evolution of the original citation system, endangering scientific communication. We argue that the increasing number of publication retractions that have been witnessed over several years is a direct consequence of the bias created by the inconsistency of citation metrics.
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.