ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Ten simple rules for being a co-author on 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 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.
- Ten simple rules for leading 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 "how to" articles, recommendations or consensus statements, roadmaps for future research, catalogs of ideas, or calls to action. These papers benefit the research community and broader academic ecosystem by addressing unmet needs or introducing new perspectives and approaches. Large, diverse authorship teams that examine an issue from many different perspectives can create valuable resources that individual co-authors could not develop independently, or in smaller groups. Realizing the potential of many-author non-empirical papers, however, requires very different strategies than researchers would typically use to write papers with fewer authors. In our process, a core team of lead writers typically works together to lead the content generation and writing processes, while many co-authors collaboratively create content and provide feedback on outlines and drafts. Challenges for co-authors may include learning to write a different type of paper, adapting to high-volume feedback, and understanding the very diverse perspectives shared by fellow co-authors. This paper outlines ten simple rules for being a co-author on a many-author non-empirical paper. Although the rules were developed for papers with at least 30 authors, some rules may be useful for many-author research papers or for non-empirical papers with fewer authors. Co-authors may also want to consult our companion paper on ten simple rules for leading a many-author non-empirical paper, as understanding the challenges faced by lead writers will help co-authors to contribute more efficiently and effectively.
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.