Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30345023›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2018

A new paradigm for the scientific enterprise: nurturing the ecosystem.

Alexander K Lancaster, Anne E Thessen, Arika Virapongse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexander K LancasterRonin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0002-9263
Anne E ThessenRonin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2908-3327
Arika VirapongseRonin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0194-5618

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The institutions of science are in a state of flux. Declining public funding for basic science, the increasingly corporatized administration of universities, increasing "adjunctification" of the professoriate and poor academic career prospects for postdoctoral scientists indicate a significant mismatch between the reality of the market economy and expectations in higher education for science. Solutions to these issues typically revolve around the idea of fixing the career "pipeline", which is envisioned as being a pathway from higher-education training to a coveted permanent position, and then up a career ladder until retirement. In this paper, we propose and describe the term "ecosystem" as a more appropriate way to conceptualize today's scientific training and the professional landscape of the scientific enterprise. First, we highlight the issues around the concept of "fixing the pipeline". Then, we articulate our ecosystem metaphor by describing a series of concrete design patterns that draw on peer-to-peer, decentralized, cooperative, and commons-based approaches for creating a new dynamic scientific enterprise.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceCareer MobilityEducation, GraduateUniversitiesHumansPeer Groupacademiacareerscollaborationhigher educationindependent scholarshippeer-to-peer sciencepolitics of sciencescience studiessystems-thinking

Identifiers

PMID30345023
PMCPMC6171719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.