ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
The chaperone effect in scientific publishing.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Corpus Colossal: A Bibliometric Analysis of Neuroscience Abstracts and Impact Factor.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2019Pooled it
- Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Network inequality through preferential attachment, triadic closure, and homophily.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The effect of trainee career intentions on mentor's interest in the trainee: Experimental evidence from academia.Research policy · 2025Article
- Academic mentees thrive in big groups, but survive in small groups.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Evaluating interdisciplinary research: Disparate outcomes for topic and knowledge base.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Collective dynamics behind success.Nature communications · 2024Review
- The academic Great Gatsby Curve.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Collaboration and topic switches in science.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations.PloS one · 2024Article
- Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Quantifying hierarchy and prestige in US ballet academies as social predictors of career success.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Ranking mobility and impact inequality in early academic careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Quantifying progress in research topics across nations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gendered research productivity and its correlates.Journal of informetrics · 2023Article
- Article
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
Experience plays a critical role in crafting high-impact scientific work. This is particularly evident in top multidisciplinary journals, where a scientist is unlikely to appear as senior author if he or she has not previously published within the same journal. Here, we develop a quantitative understanding of author order by quantifying this "chaperone effect," capturing how scientists transition into senior status within a particular publication venue. We illustrate that the chaperone effect has a different magnitude for journals in different branches of science, being more pronounced in medical and biological sciences and weaker in natural sciences. Finally, we show that in the case of high-impact venues, the chaperone effect has significant implications, specifically resulting in a higher average impact relative to papers authored by new principal investigators (PIs). Our findings shed light on the role played by experience in publishing within specific scientific journals, on the paths toward acquiring the necessary experience and expertise, and on the skills required to publish in prestigious venues.
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.