ArticlePloS one2018
Scientific productivity: An exploratory study of metrics and incentives.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stabilizing and strengthening the US physician-scientist faculty workforce in academic medicine: a proposed institutional framework.JCI insight · 2026Article
- Contemporary spine research productivity: a bibliometric analysis of 28 orthopedic and neurosurgical journals.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- A scientometric update of the evolution of national scientific production in dental educators in Peru according to gender disparity.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Mapping Knowledge Landscapes and Evolving Trends of Clinical Hypnotherapy Practice: A Bibliometrics-Based Visualization Analysis.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Behind the screen: drug discovery using the big data of phenotypic analysis.Frontiers in education · 2024Article
- Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- NSF Fellows' perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Data Integration for the Study of Outstanding Productivity in Biomedical Research.Procedia computer science · 2022Article
- Scholarly Output in Peruvian National Dentistry according to Gender Disparity: A 10-Year Bibliometric Study.BioMed research international · 2022Review
- Bibliometric Study of the National Scientific Production of All Peruvian Schools of Dentistry in Scopus.International journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Article
- NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.Science advances · 2020Article
- COVID-19 and the eye: how much do we really know? A best evidence review.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2020Review
- Article
- Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Using AI to enhance scientific discourse by transforming journals into learning communities.Archives of physiotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Competitive pressure to maximize the current bibliometric measures of productivity is jeopardizing the integrity of the scientific literature. Efforts are underway to address the 'reproducibility crisis' by encouraging the use of more rigorous, confirmatory methods. However, as long as productivity continues to be defined by the number of discoveries scientists publish, the impact factor of the journals they publish in and the number of times their papers are cited, they will be reluctant to accept high quality methods and consistently conduct and publish confirmatory/replication studies. This exploratory study examined a sample of rigorous Phase II-IV clinical trials, including unpublished studies, to determine if more appropriate metrics and incentives can be developed. The results suggest that rigorous procedures will help reduce false positives, but to the extent that higher quality methods are accepted as the standard of practice, the current bibliometric incentives will discourage innovative studies and encourage scientists to shift their research to less informative studies of subjects that are already being more actively investigated. However, the results also suggest that it is possible to develop a more appropriate system of rewards. In contrast to the current bibliometric incentives, evaluations of the quality of the methods and reproducibility of the results, innovation and diversity of thought, and amount of information produced may serve as measures and incentives that maintain the integrity of the scientific literature and maximize scientific progress.
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.