ArticlePLoS biology2019
A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences.
Article in PLoS biology, 2019. 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 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.
- Staying ahead of the curve: a decade of preprints in biology.Biology open · 2025Article
- Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Article
- How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2023Article
- Replacing academic journals.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Mastodon over Mammon: towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Standing for judicious journals.Nature biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- A guide to backward paper writing for the data sciences.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Data platforms for open life sciences-A systematic analysis of management instruments.PloS one · 2022Article
- Beyond advertising: New infrastructures for publishing integrated research objects.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2021Article
- The future of scientific publication is Open Access, but needs diversity, equability and equality!Innovative surgical sciences · 2021Article
- Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Honest signaling in academic publishing.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Current market rates for scholarly publishing services.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- Article
- Correction: A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences.PLoS biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print publishing system, such as an access paywall and editorial selection before publication. Although journals have their strengths, the traditional approach of selecting articles before publication ("curate first, publish second") forces a focus on "getting into the right journals," which can delay dissemination of scientific work, create opportunity costs for pushing science forward, and promote undesirable behaviors among scientists and the institutions that evaluate them. We believe that a "publish first, curate second" approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published, either anonymously or with attribution; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time. These proposed changes could optimize publishing practices for the digital age, emphasizing transparency, peer-mediated improvement, and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles.
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.