ArticlePLoS biology2021
Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science.
Article in PLoS biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconsidering Excellence in the Chemical Sciences: Lessons from First-Generation Chemists.ACS central science · 2026Article
- Generosity as a Scientific Method: Building Knowledge and Community in a Competitive World.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- The EDIcebreaker: a new educational inclusive tool.Biology of reproduction · 2026Article
- Building a diverse and inclusive plant science community.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Article
- "It Was Changing [My] Embedded Inner Culture": Culturally Informed Training in STEMM.Education sciences · 2026Article
- Gender Disparities in Citations and Altmetric Attention Score in Oncology.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Navigating bibliometric indicators in university rankings: a conceptual framework for strategic research management.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Review
- How does academia recognize the contribution of scientific data? Evidence from data contributors' authorship.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Workplace Experience as a Proxy for Privilege: An Unspoken Barrier Women Physicians Face in Career Advancement.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for faculty members building just and equitable environments in academic science.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Future of coral bleaching research.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Highlighting Counterstereotypical Scientists in Undergraduate Life Science Courses.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Community Cohesion, Social Support, and Mental Health among Black Individuals in Chicago: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Effects on COVID-19 Vaccination.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2024Article
- Centering relationships to place for more meaningful research and engagement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Extending the case for a "health disparities research industrial complex": A response to Ezell.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2024Article
- Ten recommendations for hosting a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) journal club.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Improving the equity landscape at U.S. academic institutions: 10 strategies to lead change.Equity in education & society · 2024Article
- A balancing act: navigating the nuances of co-production in mental health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Improving the diversity of the PLOS ONE editorial board.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist "rewards" by prioritizing citations and impact factors. These metrics are flawed and biased against already marginalized groups and fail to accurately capture the breadth of individuals' meaningful scientific impacts. We advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We outline pathways for a paradigm shift in scientific values based on multidimensional mentorship and promoting mentee well-being. These actions will require collective efforts supported by academic leaders and administrators to drive essential systemic change.
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.