Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28199324›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2017

Establishing a reliable framework for harnessing the creative power of the scientific crowd.

Adrian J Carter, Amy Donner, Wen Hwa Lee, Chas Bountra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Changing Trends in Computational Drug Repositioning.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adrian J CarterDepartment of Discovery Research Coordination, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6564-7161
Amy DonnerThe Chemical Probes Portal, Genetics Medicine Research Building, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Wen Hwa LeeStructural Genomics Consortium, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Chas BountraStructural Genomics Consortium, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discovering new medicines is difficult and increasingly expensive. The pharmaceutical industry has responded to this challenge by embracing open innovation to access external ideas. Historically, partnerships were usually bilateral, and the drug discovery process was shrouded in secrecy. This model is rapidly changing. With the advent of the Internet, drug discovery has become more decentralised, bottom-up, and scalable than ever before. The term open innovation is now accepted as just one of many terms that capture different but overlapping levels of openness in the drug discovery process. Many pharmaceutical companies recognise the advantages of revealing some proprietary information in the form of results, chemical tools, or unsolved problems in return for valuable insights and ideas. For example, such selective revealing can take the form of openly shared chemical tools to explore new biological mechanisms or by publicly admitting what is not known in the form of an open call. The essential ingredient for addressing these problems is access to the wider scientific crowd. The business of crowdsourcing, a form of outsourcing in which individuals or organisations solicit contributions from Internet users to obtain ideas or desired services, has grown significantly to fill this need and takes many forms today. Here, we posit that open-innovation approaches are more successful when they establish a reliable framework for converting creative ideas of the scientific crowd into practice with actionable plans.

Indexed as

CreativityScienceBiomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorDrug DiscoveryHumansOrganizational Innovation

Identifiers

PMID28199324
PMCPMC5331949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.