Ver el código de «About open access and the dynamics of publishing in the research communities»

;Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010271]
 
:“…if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author … papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita… these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias.”
 
;Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636]
 
:“Articles whose authors have supplemented subscription-based access to the publisher's version by self-archiving their own final draft to make it accessible free for all on the web (“Open Access”, OA) are cited significantly more than articles in the same journal and year that have not been made OA.”
 
;How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738]
:“A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.”

;Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013327]
 
:“In contrast to Newton's well-known aphorism that he had been able “to see further only by standing on the shoulders of giants,” one attributes to the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset the hypothesis saying that top-level research cannot be successful without a mass of medium researchers on which the top rests comparable to an iceberg… We demonstrate that papers contributing to the scientific progress in a field lean to a larger extent on previously important contributions than papers contributing little. These findings support the Newton hypothesis and call into question the Ortega hypothesis (given our usage of citation counts as a proxy for impact).”
(lo que viene a decir que hay cuatro tíos que hacen investigación de la buena y los demás somos el rebaño que va detrás J)