ArticleBioImpacts : BI2020
The urgent need for modification of scientific ranking indexes to facilitate scientific progress and diminish academic bullying.
Article in BioImpacts : BI, 2020. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Faculty Members' Perception of Factors on Academic Bullying: A Qualitative Study.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2025Article
- University rankings: Time to reconsider.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Article
- Negative performance feedback from algorithms or humans? effect of medical researchers' algorithm aversion on scientific misconduct.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Academic bullying in science and medicine: the need for reform.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Transformative dynamism in pharmaceutical and biomedical research: Complexity of integration of innovative R & D hubs.BioImpacts : BI · 2021Review
- COVID 19 and the race to publish: an ethical issue.The British journal of surgery · 2020Article
- A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2020Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic bullying occurs when senior scientists direct abusive behavior such as verbal insults, public shaming, isolation, and threatening toward vulnerable junior colleagues such as postdocs, graduate students and lab members. We believe that one root cause of bullying behavior is the pressure felt by scientists to compete for rankings designed to measure their scientific worth. These ratings, such as the h-index, have several unintended consequences, one of which we believe is academic bullying. Under pressure to achieve higher and higher rankings, in exchange for positive evaluations, grants and recognition, senior scientists exert undue pressure on their junior staff in the form of bullying. Lab members have little or no recourse due to the lack of fair institutional protocols for investigating bullying, dependence on grant or institutional funding, fear of losing time and empirical work by changing labs, and vulnerability to visa cancellation threats among international students. We call for institutions to reconsider their dependence on these over-simplified surrogates for real scientific progress and to provide fair and just protocols that will protect targets of academic bullying from emotional and financial distress.
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.