ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmet Expectations: Life Scientists' Views on Biorisk and Responsibility.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025Article
- Injury risk and prevention research in sports: Are titles delivering on their promises or are they just a sales pitch to capitalize on a hot topic?Journal of sport and health science · 2025Article
- Validation of publication pressure questionnaire-revised into Chinese nurses from a university hospital.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Stem cell therapy for type 1 diabetes: a scientometric assessment of global research during the twenty-first century.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2022Article
- Improving the reproducibility of findings by updating research methodology.Quality & quantity · 2022Article
- Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Article
- Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Motivating Proactive Biorisk Management.Health securityReview
- Global university performance. Bibliometric analysis of the ARWU platform (2003-2020).La Tunisie medicaleArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The publication of scientific papers has become increasingly problematic in the last decades. Even if we agree that a renewed model is needed for peer-reviewed scientific publication, we think the problem does not essentially lie in professional publishing-with economic incentives-but in the publish-or-perish culture that dominates the lives of researchers and academics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29350352What 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.