ArticleRoyal Society open science2016
Open research practices: unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them. (Commentary on the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative).
Article in Royal Society open science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Open Brain Consent: Informing research participants and obtaining consent to share brain imaging data.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
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
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative (PROI) is a move to enlist reviewers in the promotion of data-sharing. In this commentary, I discuss objections that can be raised, first to the specific proposals in the PROI, and second to data-sharing in general. I argue that although many objections have strong counter-arguments, others merit more serious consideration. Regarding the PROI, I suggest that it could backfire if editors and authors feel coerced into data-sharing and so may not be the most pragmatic way of encouraging greater openness. More generally, while promoting data-sharing, we need to be sensitive to cases where sharing of data from human participants could create ethical problems. Furthermore, those interested in promoting reproducible science need to defend against an increased risk of data-dredging when large, multivariable datasets are shared. I end with some suggestions to avoid these unintended consequences.
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.