ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Independent researchers in east Asian surgical research: structural barriers and potential policy pathways.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
East Asia is now a major center of surgical innovation. Its leading institutions have contributed to clinical care, technology adoption, and international trials. Even so, surgical research capacity, infrastructure, and academic influence remain mostly centered on major hospitals and established academic networks. Such concentration can narrow the questions asked, the methods used, and the range of people able to ask them. In this Perspective, we argue that East Asian surgical research would benefit from legitimate pathways for qualified independent researchers: professionally trained investigators who maintain substantial intellectual autonomy without holding conventional senior institutional appointments. We distinguish such researchers from amateurs by institutional affiliation, employment status, funding access, and intellectual autonomy. These dimensions, we show, operate differently in China, Japan, and South Korea, with consequences for funding eligibility, ethics review, and data access. We then outline the risks independent inquiry can carry and the safeguards that should accompany it. We propose practical measures that institutions and funders could adopt: proportionate ethics routes, transparent data-access procedures, small-grant schemes, and fairer evaluation. Our aim is to widen the pool of investigators able to meet these standards, not to lower them.
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.