ArticleRoyal Society open science2026
Science-wide mapping of institutions based on affiliated authors' impact and research integrity proxies.
Article in Royal Society open science, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to generate institution-level data of indicators that may reflect, as proxies, the impact and the research integrity of the authors affiliated with them and that also adjust for institution size and scientific subfields where these authors work. We used the Scopus database to generate institution-level data on top-cited authors (according to a composite citation indicator) and three indicators that may reflect problems with research integrity: the total number of authorships in papers retracted for reasons other than publisher/journal errors, and subfield-adjusted proportions of top-cited authors who have high (>95% percentile) self-citation rates or high (>95% percentile) rates of publications in Scopus-discontinued titles. There was modest overlap among top institutions based on volume and based on number of top-cited authors. However, there was minimal overlap when institutions with the highest proportions of top-cited authors were considered; these included mostly research institutes and tech organizations and only a minority of universities. Institutions with the highest self-citation, discontinuation and retraction penalties clustered in specific countries such as Saudi Arabia, People's Republic of China, Malaysia, Iran, India and Indonesia. The publicly available datasets that we provide allow the exploration of institution-level research assessments that balance high impact against proxies of diverse aspects of research integrity.
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.