ArticleFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology2014
Taking steps to increase the trustworthiness of scientific research.
Article in FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nine quick tips for trustworthy machine learning in the biomedical sciences.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Team Science in Precision Medicine Research:The Case for Inclusion of Adults With Intellectual Disability.American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities · 2025Article
- Why too much biomedical research is often undeserving of the public's trust.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Using the concept of "deserved trust" to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research.Accountability in research · 2021Article
- Article
- Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2019Review
- [Clinical research XXIV. From clinical judgment to ethics in research on humans].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
To enjoy the public's trust, the research community must first be clear about what it is expected to do and then avoid the incidents that prevent it from meeting those expectations. Among other things, there are expectations that published scientific results will be reliable, that research has the potential to contribute to the common good, and that research will be conducted ethically. Consequently, the scientific community needs to avoid lapses that prevent it from meeting these three expectations. This requires a strong commitment to trustworthy research practices, as well as mechanisms that diminish lapses that inevitably occur in complex endeavors such as scientific research. The author presents a model to assess the strength of commitment to trustworthy research and explores proven quality assurance mechanisms that can diminish lapses in research injurious to the public's trust. Some mechanisms identify in advance ways that things can go wrong so that steps can be taken to prevent them from going wrong in the first place. Other mechanisms investigate past errors or near misses to discover their causes so that they can be addressed to avoid similar future instances. The author explains why such methods are useful to efforts to promote research worthy of the public's trust.
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.