ArticlePloS one2023
Analyzing referencing patterns in grey literature produced by influential global management consulting firms and international organizations.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the growing influence of non-academic organizations in the policy sphere, it is important to investigate the evidence both produced by and relied on by these organizations. Using citation analysis, a methodology primarily used in academic literature, we investigated the evidence base supporting the grey literature published by leading global management consulting firms (GMCFs) and international organizations (IOs). With the topic of the skills needed for the future of work as a case study, we collected 234 reports published by influential GMCFs and IOs over twenty years. By extracting references from the bibliographies of these reports we: 1) analyzed referencing patterns by measuring citation counts, institutional self-referencing and utilization of scholarly sources; 2) compared reference patterns across GMCFs and IOs; and 3) described the most influential sources. Overall, both GMCFs and IOs showed increasing reliance on grey literature, demonstrated high levels of self-referencing, and had considerable variation in the number of sources referred to. Across type of publishing organization, we found that IOs had better referencing practices than GMCFs. Our findings call into question the evidence-base behind the reports published by these policy actors. We emphasize the need to rely on strong academic literature to inform policy decisions around the future of work.
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.