On the public citation graph

Analysis of >30,000 abstracts suggests higher false discovery rates for oncology journals, especially those with low impact factors

https://doi.org/10.1101/500660
0 signed · 29 inferred · view as graph

Inferred edges come from two machine sources: sweeps of open repository metadata (mostly SSRN and Zenodo), and a bulk OpenAlex citation snapshot. Every row below is labelled with the one it came from. Neither is a complete citation index — absence here is not evidence of absence.

Is this your work? Sign in with ORCID and put your name on the claims that are yours.
Claim with ORCID
Reference health. See whether every reference in this work resolves to a known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped badge you can embed.
See reference health

What this work says

Outgoing claims: the papers this work cites, builds on, or argues with.

inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.2.218openalex-snapshot
Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/483531aopenalex-snapshot
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/489179aopenalex-snapshot
Predatory publishers are corrupting open access
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02921-2openalex-snapshot
The undercover academic keeping tabs on ‘predatory’ publishing
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19498openalex-snapshot
Psychology’s reproducibility problem is exaggerated – say psychologists
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.295openalex-snapshot
Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.171openalex-snapshot
Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: problems and solutions
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-zopenalex-snapshot
Redefine statistical significance
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-zopenalex-snapshot
Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp1214750openalex-snapshot
The Downside of Open-Access Publishing
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754openalex-snapshot
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj093openalex-snapshot
Reproducible Epidemiologic Research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt007openalex-snapshot
An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179653openalex-snapshot
Accessible Reproducible Research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213847openalex-snapshot
Reproducible Research in Computational Science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716openalex-snapshot
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0918openalex-snapshot
Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau9619openalex-snapshot
Plan to replicate 50 high-impact cancer papers shrinks to just 18
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-060116-054104openalex-snapshot
Is Most Published Research Really False?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2017.029openalex-snapshot
What I learned from predatory publishers
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113508127openalex-snapshot
Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616646366openalex-snapshot
What Should Researchers Expect When They Replicate Studies? A Statistical View of Replicability in Psychological Science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0241-zopenalex-snapshot
Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2openalex-snapshot
‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1214/09-aoas291openalex-snapshot
Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124openalex-snapshot
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.154420openalex-snapshot
Open Access Publishing Trend Analysis: Statistics Beyond The Perception
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328openalex-snapshot
Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.603openalex-snapshot
Open access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”
Editorial review for independent work. ICSAC — the Institute for Complexity Science and Advanced Computing — runs a structured editorial panel for researchers publishing outside journals, and publishes on CiteStamp rails. Submission is free and goes through ORCID: icsacinstitute.org/submit.