
pmid: 37943961
In a year when disagreements over scientific matters like COVID-19 continue to occupy political discourse, the surfacing of a spate of high-profile research errors is regrettable. It’s crucial that the public trusts science at a time when so many topics—artificial intelligence, climate change, and pandemics—cast shadows of uncertainty on the future. Errors, intentional or not, erode confidence in science. It’s not surprising that science integrity has become a focal point for major institutions in the United States, from the White House to the National Institutes of Health. Evaluating policies on misconduct is essential, but the idea of a scientific ecosystem that is free of errors is an unattainable utopia. However, evolving a more responsive ecosystem is entirely possible, and scientific journals, institutions, and researchers must together move more intentionally in this direction.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
