Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29599533›Full record

ArticleBioscience2016

Conceptions of Good Science in Our Data-Rich World.

Kevin C Elliott, Kendra S Cheruvelil, Georgina M Montgomery, Patricia A Soranno

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The liver matrisome - looking beyond collagens.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity.Accountability in research · 2017
    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.

Kevin C ElliottKevin C. Elliott (kce@msu.edu) is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Department of Philosophy; Kendra S. Cheruvelil is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Georgina M. Montgomery is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of History; and Patricia A. Soranno is a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, in East Lansing. All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the paper and the supporting research. KCE organized the collaboration and initiated the writing process. All authors contributed text, reviewed manuscript drafts, and approved the final version.
Kendra S CheruvelilKevin C. Elliott (kce@msu.edu) is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Department of Philosophy; Kendra S. Cheruvelil is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Georgina M. Montgomery is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of History; and Patricia A. Soranno is a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, in East Lansing. All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the paper and the supporting research. KCE organized the collaboration and initiated the writing process. All authors contributed text, reviewed manuscript drafts, and approved the final version.
Georgina M MontgomeryKevin C. Elliott (kce@msu.edu) is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Department of Philosophy; Kendra S. Cheruvelil is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Georgina M. Montgomery is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of History; and Patricia A. Soranno is a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, in East Lansing. All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the paper and the supporting research. KCE organized the collaboration and initiated the writing process. All authors contributed text, reviewed manuscript drafts, and approved the final version.
Patricia A SorannoKevin C. Elliott (kce@msu.edu) is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Department of Philosophy; Kendra S. Cheruvelil is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Georgina M. Montgomery is an associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of History; and Patricia A. Soranno is a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, in East Lansing. All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the paper and the supporting research. KCE organized the collaboration and initiated the writing process. All authors contributed text, reviewed manuscript drafts, and approved the final version.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientists have been debating for centuries the nature of proper scientific methods. Currently, criticisms being thrown at data-intensive science are reinvigorating these debates. However, many of these criticisms represent long-standing conflicts over the role of hypothesis testing in science and not just a dispute about the amount of data used. Here, we show that an iterative account of scientific methods developed by historians and philosophers of science can help make sense of data-intensive scientific practices and suggest more effective ways to evaluate this research. We use case studies of Darwin's research on evolution by natural selection and modern-day research on macrosystems ecology to illustrate this account of scientific methods and the innovative approaches to scientific evaluation that it encourages. We point out recent changes in the spheres of science funding, publishing, and education that reflect this richer account of scientific practice, and we propose additional reforms.

Indexed as

data-intensive sciencehypothesis testingiterationscience educationscience funding

Identifiers

PMID29599533
PMCPMC5862324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.