Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40095066›Full record

ArticleCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2025

What are the ethical limits of claimed scientific authorship? a case report of relevance.

Juan-Carlos Argüelles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 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

1 author.

Juan-Carlos ArgüellesÁrea de Microbiología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de Murcia, 30100, Murcia, Spain. arguelle@um.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3376-3373

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its discovery in the middle of the XX century, research into autophagy has undergone a spectacular expansion, particularly in the early 1990s. A number of physiological processes involving autophagy have been revealed and important human pathologies have been associated with perturbations in autophagy. In 2008 the "Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy" was launched with the purpose of collecting in a single document all the available information to monitor autophagy, which, it was thought, might be useful for established groups and any new scientists attracted by this field. The usefulness and success of this Guidelines has led to the subsequent publication of editions every 4 years, a task in which a growing number of authors have become involved and consequently included in the list of contributors. However, this worthy initiative and closely associated metric parameters has led to important scholarly repercussions in terms of perceived merits, grants and financial support obtained, professional careers and other areas concerning scientific activity. All these aspects are carefully examined in this contribution.

Indexed as

AuthorshipPublishingAutophagyGuidelines as TopicHumansAuthorshipAutophagyEthicsMetric parametersScholar repercussions

Identifiers

PMID40095066
PMCPMC11914549

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.