ArticleFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2022
Engaging the open science framework in quantifying and tracing scientists' research credits.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.