Scientific discovery occasionally occurs as a sudden and dramatic leap ahead but more often proceeds at a subtler and steadier pace. Each small step forward may escape public notice but is ultimately vital to the journey’s success. Indeed, such gradual advancement represents the collective contributions of many workers in the field, some new to the journey. While the notion of combined effort and multiple contributors is honorable, it poses an inherent danger. In our society, unproven, unorthodox, or unnoticed researchers may not receive the funding or support needed to make their contributions. Furthermore, even if they have the potential to make a leap, a hostile environment may preclude their doing so. This article concentrates on the looming crisis in diabetes research, but the principles pertain to all fields of clinical and biomedical science.
Aldo A. Rossini
Usage data is cumulative from November 2023 through November 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 143 | 16 |
86 | 16 | |
Figure | 115 | 3 |
Citation downloads | 48 | 0 |
Totals | 392 | 35 |
Total Views | 427 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.