ArticleThe EMBO journal2015
Reproducibility blues.
Article in The EMBO journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The crucial role of bioimage analysts in scientific research and publication.Journal of cell science · 2024Article
- Publishing unpredictable research outcomes.EMBO reports · 2022Article
- Improving the reproducibility of findings by updating research methodology.Quality & quantity · 2022Article
- Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Article
- Assessing data availability and research reproducibility in hydrology and water resources.Scientific data · 2019Article
- Data citation: what, when, why?Molecular systems biology · 2018Article
- Novel insights into the genetic background of genetically modified mice.Transgenic research · 2018Article
- Locating ethics in data science: responsibility and accountability in global and distributed knowledge production systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2016Article
- Preparing for Preprints.The EMBO journal · 2016Article
- Handling Metadata in a Neurophysiology Laboratory.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2016Article
- Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel) · 2016Article
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
Research findings advance science only if they are significant, reliable and reproducible. Scientists and journals must publish robust data in a way that renders it optimally reproducible. Reproducibility has to be incentivized and supported by the research infrastructure but without dampening innovation.
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.