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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.323
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.616
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3230.616
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.055
Scholarly communication0.0320.031
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0270.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
GenreCommentary

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