ReviewmBio2024
The changing roles of scientific journals.
Review in mBio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric assessment of theIndian journal of psychiatry · 2026Review
- Publishing gold standard science.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Article
- Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Scientific Paper and Poster Presentations: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Encouraging Young Researchers: The Journal's Role.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After centuries of relative stability, the scientific publishing world has undergone tremendous disruption and change during the first decades of the 21st century. The causes for disruption can be traced to the information revolution, which brought such benefits as rapid publication, greater connectivity, and ready access to large databases, along with less desirable practices including image manipulation, plagiarism, and other ethical transgressions. The information revolution has driven the proliferation of journals, expansion of for-profit academic publishing, and empowerment of the open-access movement, each of which has exerted new financial pressures on traditional publishing models. As journals became the focal point for ethical concerns in science, they have adapted by increasing the scope of their duties, which now include archiving of data, enforcement of good practices, establishment of standards for rigor, and training the next generation of reviewers and editors. Here, we consider the seismic changes occurring in scientific publishing and place them into the context of a rapidly changing landscape of scientific and publishing norms.
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.