Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32641143›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2020

The current crisis of academia-led research: a threat to the common good? Preliminary data from Europe and the United States.

Mauro Giovanni Carta, Maria Francesca Moro, Iskren Kirilov, Ferdinando Romano, Silvano Tagliagambe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Mauro Giovanni CartaDipartimento di Medicina Interna e Salute Pubblica, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. mgcarta@tiscali.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0706-9687
Maria Francesca MoroDipartimento di Medicina Interna e Salute Pubblica, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Iskren KirilovPhD Programme Innovation Sciences and Technologies, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Ferdinando RomanoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Silvano TagliagambeUniversity of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis research note aimed to analyze the scientific productivity trends 2015-2019, focusing on the top 30 universities in Europe and United States and on the top 30 private companies-as classified in the SCImago Institutions Ranking. Our hypothesis is that private companies are gaining an increasingly prominent role in the research field, while academia is losing its predominance.

resultsFrom 2015 to 2019, all universities in Europe and the United States lost positions in the scientific production ranking, while private companies gained positions. These trends seem to be driven mainly by the scientific productivity sub-indicator "Innovation". These data suggest that the role private companies will play in the future will not be limited to support research economically or influence it from "outside". Private companies have taken a path that may lead them to directly control all stages of production/communication of knowledge, including research-a role once bestowed on universities. Our data, although preliminary, seem to suggest that, at present, academia risks losing its predominance in the research field. This scenario deserves attention because of the threats it may pose to the independence of research and its role in supporting human equity and sustainable health for all.

Indexed as

UniversitiesEuropePrivate SectorResearchUnited StatesDatabase analysisResearch methodologyResearch outputScientific productivity

Identifiers

PMID32641143
PMCPMC7341575

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.