Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37921985›Full record

ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2024

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.

John P A Ioannidis, Zacharias Maniadis

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

John P A IoannidisDepartments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, SPRC, MSOB X306, 1265 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. jioannid@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3118-6859
Zacharias ManiadisSInnoPSis (Science and Innovation Policy and Studies) Unit, Department of Economics, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Stanford Health Care · USUniversity of Cyprus · CY

Funding

H2020 Excellent Science 857636
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

Indexed as

BibliometricsJournal Impact FactorAuthorshipHumansPublishingBibliometricsCitationsFraudGamingGift authorshipImpact factorResearch assessmentSelf-citations

Identifiers

PMID37921985
PMCPMC10827896
OpenAlexW4388303467

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.