Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42371966›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Negotiating knowledge: The role of network hedging in the production of high-impact science.

Adrián A Díaz-Faes, Pablo D'Este, Anne L J Ter Wal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Adrián A Díaz-FaesINGENIO, CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1928-4608
Pablo D'EsteINGENIO, CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain.
Anne L J Ter WalImperial Business School, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extant research shows that knowledge networks with a greater diversity of participants and richer in structural holes are more conducive to advancing science and innovation. However, research on network structure and network composition tends to overlook how actors might best utilize their connections. In this study, we seek to unpack the variation in how individuals leverage the opportunities afforded by their networks, focusing on the scientific knowledge production process. Given the uncertainty faced by scientists during the different stages of the research process, we argue that network hedging - consulting multiple individuals for the same resource need - rather than network compartmentalization - turning to a particular network contact for a specific resource need - increases the likelihood of research findings with greater scientific impact. By analyzing granular data on the network mobilization decisions and scientific outputs for a sample of biomedical scientists, we find support for our prediction that network hedging is positively associated with the production of high-impact scientific output, and that this effect is manifest beyond the benefits of being embedded in more diverse or sparser networks.

Indexed as

KnowledgeNegotiatingScienceHumans

Identifiers

PMID42371966
PMCPMC13313354

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.