ArticlePloS one2023
Are quality assessments in science affected by anchoring effects? The proposal of a follow-up study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We plan to empirically study the assessment of scientific papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. This study is a follow-up study which is intended to answer open questions from the previous study with the same topic Bornmann (2021) and Bornmann (2023). The previous and follow-up studies address a central question in research evaluation: does bibliometrics create the social order in science it is designed to measure or does bibliometrics reflect the given social order (which is dependent on the intrinsic quality of research)? If bibliometrics creates the social order, it can be interpreted as an anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. In the planned study, we shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of articles that they cited in previous papers. The authors are randomly assigned to different experimental settings in which they receive (or not) citation information or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation counts or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation counts), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. Strong effects of the anchors would mean that bibliometrics (or any other number) create the social order they are supposed to measure.
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.