Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39808643›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A twofold perspective on the quality of research publications: The use of ICTs and research activity models.

Jolanta Wartini-Twardowska, Natalia Paulina Twardowska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Jolanta Wartini-TwardowskaDepartment of Business Informatics and International Accounting, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7273-6357
Natalia Paulina TwardowskaDepartment of Structural and Molecular Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have highlighted the inherent subjectivity, complexity, and challenges associated with research quality leading to fragmented findings. We identified determinants of research publication quality in terms of research activities and the use of information and communication technologies by employing an interdisciplinary approach. We conducted web-based surveys among academic scientists and applied machine learning techniques to model behaviors during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Using model-agnostic explanations, we identified the determinants of research publication quality across 66 activity models. These models reflect the variety of behaviors among academic scientists during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our two-fold perspective distinguishes between research activities of academic scientists who increase research publication quality and those who maintain it. Notably, our findings reveal a diversity within activity models in shaping research publication quality. Academic institutions can apply our approach to analyze research staff behavior, stimulate activities, and ensure alignment with institutional objectives, thereby fostering individual and team complementarity.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCOVID-19PublicationsHumansMachine LearningPandemicsResearch PersonnelSARS-CoV-2Surveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39808643
PMCPMC11731720

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.