ArticleeLife2016
How open science helps researchers succeed.
Article in eLife, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 190 papers, 7 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
190 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multiple modes of data sharing can facilitate secondary use of sensitive health data for research.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Within-person associations between psychological and contextual factors and lapse incidence in smokers attempting to quit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Understanding health behaviours in context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies of five key health behaviours.Health psychology review · 2022Pooled it
- Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Pooled it
- Identifying a brain network for musical rhythm: A functional neuroimaging meta-analysis and systematic review.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Natural language processing of symptoms documented in free-text narratives of electronic health records: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of psychophysiological interactions: Revisiting cluster-level thresholding and sample sizes.Human brain mapping · 2017Pooled it
- An Open-Source, Reproducible MRI Data Acquisition and Reconstruction Workflow Using Pulseq: Multi-Site and Cross-Vendor Validation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Reconciling global collaboration and data sovereignty in neuroscience.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Open Science Practices in Systematic Reviews From 2014 to 2024: A Cohort Study of 300 Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Data Availability Statements of Publications in Journals Indexed in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine Category of Journal Citation Reports: A Meta-Research Study.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Editorial Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Article
- Amplifying signal-to-noise: Responsible use of large language models in radiology publishing.Clinical imaging · 2026Article
- DiSCoKit: An open-source toolkit for deploying live LLM experiences in survey research.PloS one · 2026Article
- Training resources on open and responsible research and innovation (Open RRI): gaps, quality and opportunities to advance training.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- Relational Databases for Behavior Science.Perspectives on behavior science · 2025Article
130 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.
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.