ArticlePLoS biology2019
Reliable novelty: New should not trump true.
Article in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing meta-analyses' insights in ecology and evolution research.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Validating Cross-Modal Measures for Comparative Research: Message Veracity, Novelty, and Memorability.Psychology & marketing · 2023Article
- Mastodon over Mammon: towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Replacing academic journals.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Sustained software development, not number of citations or journal choice, is indicative of accurate bioinformatic software.Genome biology · 2022Article
- A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.Journal for general philosophy of science = Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie · 2022Article
- Novel biomedical research must not be a work of fiction.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Article
- Current market rates for scholarly publishing services.F1000Research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although a case can be made for rewarding scientists for risky, novel science rather than for incremental, reliable science, novelty without reliability ceases to be science. The currently available evidence suggests that the most prestigious journals are no better at detecting unreliable science than other journals. In fact, some of the most convincing studies show a negative correlation, with the most prestigious journals publishing the least reliable science. With the credibility of science increasingly under siege, how much longer can we afford to reward novelty at the expense of reliability? Here, I argue for replacing the legacy journals with a modern information infrastructure that is governed by scholars. This infrastructure would allow renewed focus on scientific reliability, with improved sort, filter, and discovery functionalities, at massive cost savings. If these savings were invested in additional infrastructure for research data and scientific code and/or software, scientific reliability would receive additional support, and funding woes-for, e.g., biological databases-would be a concern of the past.
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.