ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2014
Critical issues in the teaching of responsible writing.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- An Activity to Promote Recognition of Unintentional Plagiarism in Scientific Writing in Undergraduate Biology Courses.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2019Article
- Plagiarism Continues to Affect Scholarly Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- Text recycling in health sciences research literature: a rhetorical perspective.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper I identify some of the more common, problematic writing practices (e.g., plagiarism, selective reporting of literature, and/or results, 'spin') found in traditional journal articles, along with associated variables, and suggest ways to correct them. The primary aim of the discussion is to emphasize the cultivation of transparency, excellence in scholarship, and a 'best practices' approach to disseminating the results of our research.
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.