Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36714201›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2022

Engaging the open science framework in quantifying and tracing scientists' research credits.

Zhiyi Chen, Xuerong Liu, Kuan Miao, Xingya Liao, Xiaoling Zhang, Zhengzhi Feng, Hu Chuan-Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Zhiyi ChenDepartment of Medical Psychology, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xuerong LiuDepartment of Medical Psychology, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Kuan MiaoDepartment of Medical Psychology, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xingya LiaoDepartment of Medical Psychology, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiaoling ZhangDepartment of Medical Psychology, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Zhengzhi FengDepartment of Medical Psychology, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hu Chuan-PengSchool of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preface illustration. The "first-last-author-credit" hierarchy has long been dominated in the scientific incentive system despite intensive calling for contribution-based credits (author contribution statement). In the scientific communities, senior researchers would still make a decision to recommend one's promotion based on first and last positions in authorship rather than their contributions. Similarly, in the job market, institutions would acknowledge one's credit by positions in authorship in a study for faculty recruitment, while overlooking the author contribution statement at the end of studies. Thus, the current authorship system has brought on the risks underlying authorship disputes and race/gender inequalities in credit allocation heavily, especially for early career researchers and female scientists. In addition, this is one of the major barriers to extend teamwork and academic collaboration. On the contrary, scrambling for first and last positions leads to prominent credit inflation-that is to be observed-the number of co-first and co-corresponding authors has been increasing dramatically. Thus, we shall propose a new contributionship to acknowledge the author's credit for an open science and quantitative framework to tackle these issues. Credit: ZC and XRL.

Indexed as

authorshipcontributionshipearly career researchersgender equalityopen science

Identifiers

PMID36714201
PMCPMC9878444

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.