ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2017
Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Transforming academic medicine through social media: why isn't it working for me?Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Article
- The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Online presence of biomedical researchers: Where to maintain a profile?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Predatory Journals and Publishers - Dilemmas: How to Assess it and How to Avoid it?Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021Article
- Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Review
- SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Review
- Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2020Article
- Steps towards quality of open access publishing.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2018Article
- Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Review
- Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Review
- Measuring Individual Performance with Comprehensive Bibliometric Reports as an Alternative toJournal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Inappropriate Authorship and Kinship in Research Evaluation.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Fostering Strategic Changes in Publishing: Journal of Korean Medical Science in 2018.Journal of Korean medical science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently available online profiling platforms offer various services for researchers and authors. Opening an individual account and filling it with scholarly contents increase visibility of research output and boost its impact. This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking. Global bibliographic databases and search platforms, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, are widely used for profiling authors with indexed publications. Scholarly networking websites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, provide indispensable services for researchers poorly visible elsewhere on the Internet. Several specialized platforms are designed to offer profiling along with their main functionalities, such as reference management and archiving. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) project has offered a solution to the author name disambiguation. It has been integrated with numerous bibliographic databases, platforms, and manuscript submission systems to help research managers and journal editors select and credit the best reviewers, and other scholarly contributors. Individuals with verifiable reviewer and editorial accomplishments are also covered by Publons, which is an increasingly recognized service for publicizing and awarding reviewer comments. Currently available profiling formats have numerous advantages and some limitations. The advantages are related to their openness and chances of boosting the researcher impact. Some of the profiling websites are complementary to each other. The underutilization of various profiling websites and their inappropriate uses for promotion of 'predatory' journals are among reported limitations. A combined approach to the profiling systems is advocated in this article.
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.