ArticlePLoS biology2016
Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency.
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
160 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices: Five years later.Behavior research methods · 2023Pooled it
- Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations.Annual review of public health · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A consensus-based transparency checklist.Nature human behaviour · 2020Guideline
- Good clinical practice improves rigor and transparency: Lessons from the ACTIVE trial.Psychology and aging · 2022Trial
- Designing reproducible large-language-model-assisted scientific analyses.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Self-reported availability of research data in American Psychological Association journal articles: a cross-sectional investigation.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Unlocking the benefits of transparent and reusable science for climate risk management.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Assessing Questionable and Responsible Research Practices in Psychology Master's Theses.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unmasking the ethical dimensions of data-sharing in health research: perspectives from researchers at a public university in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Using reporting guidelines to improve the reproducibility of cooking Christmas tree meringues: the "People tasting trees" cluster-randomised controlled trial.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- Tier-based standards for FAIR sequence data and metadata sharing in microbiome research.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Stability and Change in Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Across Childhood and Adolescence.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · 2025Article
- Promoting the adoption of best practices and standards to enhance quality and reproducibility of stem cell research.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data a case study of the Norwegian mother, father, and child cohort study (MoBa).BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Article
100 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.
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.