On the public citation graph

Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities

https://doi.org/10.1101/802850
0 signed · 23 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 See whether every reference in this work resolves to a known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped badge you can embed.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.2017.0549openalex-snapshot
Acknowledging and Overcoming Nonreproducibility in Basic and Preclinical Research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8openalex-snapshot
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62296-5openalex-snapshot
Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00307-4openalex-snapshot
Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/549133aopenalex-snapshot
Faculty promotion must assess reproducibility
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-zopenalex-snapshot
Redefine statistical significance
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18openalex-snapshot
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1713258openalex-snapshot
Clinical Trial Participants’ Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-01-2017-0006openalex-snapshot
Recognition and reward in the academy
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12612openalex-snapshot
Academic criteria for appointment, promotion and rewards in medical research: where's the evidence?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8fopenalex-snapshot
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535openalex-snapshot
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18openalex-snapshot
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002614openalex-snapshot
Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089openalex-snapshot
Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296openalex-snapshot
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097openalex-snapshot
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.282736openalex-snapshot
UK Survey of Academics 2015
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010openalex-snapshot
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.47338openalex-snapshot
Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

What points at this work

Incoming claims: where this work appears in other papers’ reference lists and arguments.

inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737openalex-snapshot
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.21452/abec.2021.abec.001openalex-snapshot
Princípios de Hong Kong para a Avaliação de Pesquisadores: Promovendo a Integridade em Pesquisa
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.21452/rode2021.01openalex-snapshot
Princípios de Hong Kong para a Avaliação de Pesquisadores: Promovendo a Integridade em Pesquisa
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.