ArticleInfection and immunity2012
Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms.
Article in Infection and immunity, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Burnout and Stress Among Underrepresented Minority Health Professional Faculty: A Mixed Methods Study.Nursing open · 2025Article
- Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Article
- Scientific civility and academic performance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- NIH Policies and Regulatory Pathways to U.S. FDA licensure: Strategies to Inform Advancement of Radiation Medical Countermeasures and Biodosimetry Devices.Radiation research · 2022Article
- Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Does Ophthalmology Need Philosophy?Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Why Psychology Needs to Stop Striving for Novelty and How to Move Towards Theory-Driven Research.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Framework for advancing rigorous research.eLife · 2020Article
- Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Envisioning data sharing for the biocomputing community.Interface focus · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Making the scientific literature fail-safe.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2018Article
- A new paradigm for the scientific enterprise: nurturing the ecosystem.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary science has brought about technological advances and an unprecedented understanding of the natural world. However, there are signs of dysfunction in the scientific community as well as threats from diverse antiscience and political forces. Incentives in the current system place scientists under tremendous stress, discourage cooperation, encourage poor scientific practices, and deter new talent from entering the field. It is time for a discussion of how the scientific enterprise can be reformed to become more effective and robust. Serious reform will require more consistent methodological rigor and a transformation of the current hypercompetitive scientific culture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.