Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36520776›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Ten simple rules for failing successfully in academia.

Stefan Gaillard, Tara van Viegen, Michele Veldsman, Melanie I Stefan, Veronika Cheplygina

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 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

5 authors.

Stefan GaillardCenter of Trial and Error, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1956-7325
Tara van ViegenIndependent Scientist, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michele VeldsmanWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2192-378X
Melanie I StefanCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School: Biomedical Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6086-7357
Veronika CheplyginaIT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Failure is an integral part of life and by extension academia. At the same time, failure is often ignored, with potentially negative consequences both for the science and the scientists involved. This article provides several strategies for learning from and dealing with failure instead of ignoring it. Hopefully, our recommendations are widely applicable, while still taking into account individual differences between academics. These simple rules allow academics to further develop their own strategies for failing successfully in academia.

Identifiers

PMID36520776
PMCPMC9754284

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.