ArticleF1000Research2016
Towards an open science publishing platform.
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Zika Virus Infection as a Cause of Congenital Brain Abnormalities and Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Systematic Review.PLoS medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Language and cognitive function in children: a narrative review of neural, behavioral, and developmental evidence.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- A data management system for precision medicine.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences.PLoS biology · 2019Article
- An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact.Gates open research · 2019Article
- Facilitating Web-Based Collaboration in Evidence Synthesis (TaskExchange): Development and Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Social behavioural epistemology and the scientific community.Journal of genetics · 2017Article
- Fairness in scientific publishing.F1000Research · 2016Article
- Should there be greater use of preprint servers for publishing reports of biomedical science?F1000Research · 2016Article
- search.bioPreprint: a discovery tool for cutting edge, preprint biomedical research articles.F1000Research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The way science and research is done is rapidly becoming more open and collaborative. The traditional way of publishing new findings in journals is becoming increasingly outdated and no longer serves the needs of much of science. Whilst preprints can bring significant benefits of removing delay and selection, they do not go far enough if simply implemented alongside the existing journal system. We propose that we need a new approach, an Open Science Platform, that takes the benefits of preprints but adds formal, invited, and transparent post-publication peer review. This bypasses the problems of the current journal system and, in doing so, moves the evaluation of research and researchers away from the journal-based Impact Factor and towards a fairer system of article-based qualitative and quantitative indicators. In the long term, it should be irrelevant where a researcher publishes their findings. What is important is that research is shared and made available without delay within a framework that encourages quality standards and requires all players in the research community to work as collaborators.
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.