ReviewCommunications medicine2025
Call for a fairer approach to authorship in publishing biomedical research.
Review in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Single-Authored Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Alignment with Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this Perspective article, we call for a fairer approach to authorship practice in collaborative biomedical research to promote equity and inclusiveness. Current practice does not adequately recognise all contributors involved in different stages of the work and may exacerbate preexisting inequalities. Here, we discuss some key features of contemporary collaborative research practice that complicate authorship decisions. These include the project size, complexity of multidisciplinary team involvement and researchers having varying degrees of expertise and experience. We conclude by making some suggestions to address these concerns.
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.