IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i7d10.1007_s11192-022-04434-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tamquam alter idem: formal similarities in a subset of reports on anti-inflammatory compounds in the years 2008–2019

Author

Listed:
  • Carlo Galli

    (University of Parma)

  • Roberto Sala

    (University of Parma)

  • Maria Teresa Colangelo

    (University of Parma)

  • Stefano Guizzardi

    (University of Parma)

Abstract

A literature search on the in vitro testing of anti-inflammatory compounds of natural origin revealed a considerable number of studies adopting a similar template for data reporting in the years up to 2019. Sixty-five such reports appear to have been published between the years 2008 and 2019. Interestingly, this format template was clearly recognizable by a few hallmarks, such as a precise way of plotting cell viability data, extremely consistent endpoints, and the way these were graphically represented. In some instances the similarities extended to some textual features, such as in the case of figure legends. The similarity was so high that chance can be excluded and these studies can be safely assumed to have intentionally followed a template. By 2020, however, no new reports following this format have been published. Although a consistent and reproducible formatting for data reporting may improve report readability, this phenomenon should also be closely scrutinized to assess the rationale why it occurred, the validity of the endpoints that were chosen and why it was then abandoned. The present report reviewed the mean features of this format, traced its origin and its evolution over time, while discussing the limitations of this model.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlo Galli & Roberto Sala & Maria Teresa Colangelo & Stefano Guizzardi, 2022. "Tamquam alter idem: formal similarities in a subset of reports on anti-inflammatory compounds in the years 2008–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3879-3910, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04434-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04434-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04434-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04434-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Si Shen & Ronald Rousseau & Dongbo Wang, 2018. "Do papers with an institutional e-mail address receive more citations than those with a non-institutional one?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1039-1050, May.
    2. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    3. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    4. Marcin Kozak & Olesia Iefremova & Jarosław Szkoła & Daniel Sas, 2015. "Do researchers provide public or institutional E-mail accounts as correspondence E-mails in scientific articles?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2149-2154, October.
    5. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Xiaomei Liu & Xiaotian Chen, 2021. "Authors' noninstitutional emails and their correlation with retraction," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(4), pages 473-477, April.
    7. Carlo Galli & Roberto Sala & Maria Teresa Colangelo & Stefano Guizzardi, 2019. "Between Innovation and Standardization, Is There Still a Room for Scientific Reports? The Rise of a Formatting Tradition in Periodontal Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    2. Nicolas Gratiot & Jérémie Klein & Marceau Challet & Olivier Dangles & Serge Janicot & Miriam Candelas & Géraldine Sarret & Géremy Panthou & Benoît Hingray & Nicolas Champollion & Julien Montillaud & P, 2023. "A transition support system to build decarbonization scenarios in the academic community," Post-Print hal-04126329, HAL.
    3. Sun, Zhuanlan & Liu, Sheng & Li, Yiwei & Ma, Chao, 2023. "Expedited editorial decision in COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    4. Aslıhan Sezgin & Keziban Orbay & Metin Orbay, 2022. "Educational Research Review From Diverse Perspectives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science (2011–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    5. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2021. "The unbearable lightness of scientometric indices," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1933-1944, December.
    6. Xiaomei Liu & Xiaotian Chen, 2021. "Authors' noninstitutional emails and their correlation with retraction," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(4), pages 473-477, April.
    7. Raul Rodriguez‐Esteban & Dina Vishnyakova & Fabio Rinaldi, 2022. "Revisiting the decay of scientific email addresses," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 136-139, January.
    8. Guoqiang Liang & Ying Lou & Haiyan Hou, 2022. "Revisiting the disruptive index: evidence from the Nobel Prize-winning articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5721-5730, October.
    9. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    10. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    13. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2020. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1572-1594, September.
    14. Marcos Ferasso & Tatiana Beliaeva & Sascha Kraus & Thomas Clauss & Domingo Ribeiro‐Soriano, 2020. "Circular economy business models: The state of research and avenues ahead," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3006-3024, December.
    15. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    16. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    17. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    18. Liang Chen & Wanli Li, 2022. "Language acquisition and regional innovation: Evidence from English proficiency in China," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(1), pages 178-191, January.
    19. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    20. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04434-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.