MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936372603 · doi:10.12688/f1000research.6809.2

The Inherent Drawbacks of the Pressure to Publish in Health Sciences: Good or Bad Science

2016· preprint· en· W1936372603 on OpenAlexaff
Ricardo Jorge Dinis‐Oliveira, Teresa Magalhães

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsPublicationOpen peer reviewHealth scienceMedicinePhysiologyPlant biologyMedical educationPolitical scienceBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific publications- it is the era of "hunting the article". This commentary discusses the drawbacks of the pressure to publish that certainly contribute to the 'dark side' of science. In fact, health science career progression greatly relies on the number of scientific publications a researcher has, and in many cases these may be more valorized than the health services provided. Of course, scientific publications help to develop the skills of health care professionals, but as Einstein highlighted " not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207