ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Ten simple rules for leading a many-author non-empirical paper.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Evaluation of scientific outcomes of TDR-supported clinical research and development fellows in low- and middle-income countries: a bibliometric analysis.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Review
- Ten simple rules for being a co-author on a many-author non-empirical paper.PLoS computational biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many-author non-empirical papers include recommendations or consensus statements, catalogs of ideas, roadmaps for future research, calls to action, or "how to" articles. These papers have great potential to change the conversation or address unmet needs within research communities. Large, diverse authorship teams can create valuable resources that no individual co-author could create independently. Achieving these goals, however, requires a very different approach than researchers typically use to prepare papers with fewer authors. In the process we describe, a small team of lead writers typically leads the content generation and writing processes. Many co-authors collaborate to create content and provide feedback throughout the writing process. Lead writers face many challenges, including defining the content and structure of the paper, coordinating complex logistics, preparing themselves and co-authors for a unique writing experience, and managing high-volume feedback. Here, we outline ten simple rules for leading a many-author non-empirical paper. These rules guide readers through the content generation and writing processes and highlight practical solutions to common challenges. While these rules were developed by preparing non-empirical papers with at least 30 authors, some rules may apply to research papers or non-empirical papers with fewer authors. Lead writers can also use our companion paper, which shares ten simple rules for being a co-author on a many-author non-empirical paper, to prepare co-authors for an efficient and effective collaborative 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.