ArticlePloS one2025
Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to Neveu and Neveu: Inference in an information-restricted environment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Reviewers are better equipped to detect fraud than editors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
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
Editors of scientific journals make central decisions in the publication process. Information peripheral to the content of a manuscript such as the editor's professional circle and authors' publishing record may influence these decisions. This constitutes reputation whose role in the publication process remains poorly investigated. Analyzing three decades of publications of 33 Nature journals in physical and life sciences, we show that reputation is tied with publications at the level of editors. The establishment of a non-financial conflict of interest policy and the journals' impact factor were associated with changes in the number of publications of editors' former co-authors and authors with a publishing record in Nature journals. We suggest changes at the author and journal levels to mitigate the role of reputation in the publication process.
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.