ArticleBrain and behavior2019
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Different Red Blood Cell Storage Solutions and Conditions on Cell Function and Viability: A Systematic Review.Biomolecules · 2024Pooled it
- Virtual Screening and Zebrafish Phenotype-Based Evaluation Argues Against Repurposing 4-Phenylbutyrate for STXBP1-Related Disorders.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Health policies in long-term care facilities for older adults: A systematic review of textual evidence.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Virtual screening and zebrafish phenotype-based evaluation argues against repurposing 4-phenylbutyrate for STXBP1-related disorders.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Quantification Revisited: What qPCR Efficiency Models Reveal About Data Analysis Integrity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Twenty years of health monitoring in a conventional neuroscience animal facility: challenges, strategies, and 3Rs-oriented approaches to animal welfare, personnel health, and research integrity.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Determinants of publication likelihood and timeliness for clinical studies.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- BiInferApp: A Shiny Application for Bidirectional Inference between P-values and Confidence Intervals for epidemiological measures of effects in R software.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2025Article
- Commentary: Comparison of radiological interpretation made by veterinary radiologists and state-of-the-art commercial AI software for canine and feline radiographic studies.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Scrutinizing the COVID-19 vaccine safety debate.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials.Nature protocols · 2024Review
- An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2024Review
- Inappropriate image duplications in rhinology research publications.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2024Article
- Strengthening a Weak Link: Transparency of Causal Loop Diagrams, Current State and Recommendation.System dynamics review · 2023Article
- Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updatedF1000Research · 2023Article
- Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility.BMJ open · 2022Review
- FAIRSCAPE: a Framework for FAIR and Reproducible Biomedical Analytics.Neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Guilt is effectively induced by a written auto-biographical essay but not reduced by experimental pain.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Patient and public engagement in decision-making regarding infectious disease outbreak management: an integrative review.BMJ global health · 2021Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.