ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2018
Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Symbolic scarcity and epistemic waste: a systems theory of academic publishing failure.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Germany in pharmacology publishing: 192 articles with 1367 citations in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives vs. 16,775 articles with 274,225 citations elsewhere.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Reforming medical career progression: a call for merit-based systems.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Towards responsible research assessment: How to reward research quality.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Teaching epistemic integrity to promote reliable scientific communication.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Rumination symptoms in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, and outcomes of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) treatment.Translational psychiatry · 2023Article
- Replacing academic journals.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- The Issue of Reliability and Repeatability of Analytical Measurement in Industrial and Academic Nanomedicine.ACS nano · 2023Review
- Metadata integrity in bioinformatics: Bridging the gap between data and knowledge.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals. However, data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be
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.