Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36153631›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2022

The failure of success: four lessons learned in five years of research on research integrity and research assessments.

Noémie Aubert Bonn, Raymond G De Vries, Wim Pinxten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Noémie Aubert BonnDepartment of Healthcare and Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Life Science, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium. noemie.aubertbonn@uhasselt.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0252-2331
Raymond G De VriesCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, USA.
Wim PinxtenDepartment of Healthcare and Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Life Science, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.

Funding

Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds 15NI05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past 5 years, we captured the perspectives from a broad array of research stakeholders to better understand the impact that current approaches to success and research assessment may have on the integrity and the quality of research. Here, we translate our findings in four actions that are urgently needed to foster better research. First, we need to address core research structures to overcome systemic problems of the research enterprise; second, we must realign research assessments to value elements that advance and strengthen science; third, we need to remodel, diversify, and secure research careers; and finally, we need to unite and coordinate efforts for change.

Indexed as

DiversityPrecarityPublication pressureResearch assessmentResearch cultureResearch integritySystem change

Identifiers

PMID36153631
PMCPMC9509645

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.