ArticleJournal of neuroscience research2019
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
Article in Journal of neuroscience research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Publication Bias in Epidemiological Studies of Malocclusions in Mexican Children and Teenagers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review of the Philippine Plants' Antibacterial Properties againstActa medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Article
- Multi-Metric Approach for the Comparison of Denoising Techniques for Resting-State fMRI.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Critical thinking in the age of generative AI: implications for health sciences education.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Article
- An infralimbic cortex neuronal ensemble encoded during learning attenuates fear generalization expression.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A Proposed Framework for Rigor and Transparency in Dysphagia Research: Prologue.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2024Article
- Transitivity, coherence, and reliability of network meta-analyses comparing proximal humerus fracture treatments: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- A Commentary on "Pain Reduction and Improved Vascular Health Associated with Daily Consumption of an Anti-Inflammatory Dietary Supplement Blend" [Letter].Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study.F1000Research · 2024Article
- A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing TearcareClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Gender Equality in Antiphospholipid Syndrome Publications: A Comprehensive Analysis of First Author Trends.Cureus · 2023Review
- Elimination of 4T1 Mammary Tumor Cells by BALB/cBy UBC-GFP Transgenics following Stable Inheritance of the H-2b MHC Allele.ImmunoHorizons · 2023Article
- Adolescence alcohol exposure impairs fear extinction and alters medial prefrontal cortex plasticity.Neuropharmacology · 2022Article
- A System to Easily Manage Metadata in Biomedical Research Labs Based on Open-source Software.Bio-protocol · 2022Article
- Automated detection of over- and under-dispersion in baseline tables in randomised controlled trials.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Evaluating Breast Reconstruction Reviews Using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
- Open science practices for eating disorders research.The International journal of eating disorders · 2021Article
- Insufficient transparency of statistical reporting in preclinical research: a scoping review.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories.
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.