ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2017
The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them).
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: Model-averaging across complementary publication bias adjustment methods.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Researcher bias and the enduring gap between the world's fastest men and women.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Article
- How do psychology researchers interpret the results of multiple replication studies?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Using selection models to assess sensitivity to publication bias: A tutorial and call for more routine use.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- A qualitative analysis of stakeholder experiences with Registered Reports Funding Partnerships.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- An Increase in Vigorous but Not Moderate Physical Activity Makes People Feel They Have Changed Their Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
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
In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers' tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.
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.