Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30609273›Full record

ReviewIntegrated environmental assessment and management2019

Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency.

Christopher A Mebane, John P Sumpter, Anne Fairbrother, Thomas P Augspurger, Timothy J Canfield, William L Goodfellow, Patrick D Guiney, Anne LeHuray, Lorraine Maltby, David B Mayfield and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2019. 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. Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving natural product research translation: From source to clinical trial.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020
    Article
  8. 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

15 authors.

Christopher A MebaneUS Geological Survey, Boise, Idaho.
John P SumpterBrunel University London, United Kingdom.
Anne FairbrotherExponent, Bellevue, Washington, USA.
Thomas P AugspurgerUS Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Timothy J CanfieldUS Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
William L GoodfellowExponent, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Patrick D GuineyUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Anne LeHurayChemical Management Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Lorraine MaltbyUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
David B MayfieldGradient, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Michael J McLaughlinUniversity of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lisa S OrtegoBayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Tamar SchlekatSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Florida, USA.
Richard P ScrogginsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tim A VerslyckeGradient, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-profile reports of detrimental scientific practices leading to retractions in the scientific literature contribute to lack of trust in scientific experts. Although the bulk of these have been in the literature of other disciplines, environmental toxicology and chemistry are not free from problems. While we believe that egregious misconduct such as fraud, fabrication of data, or plagiarism is rare, scientific integrity is much broader than the absence of misconduct. We are more concerned with more commonly encountered and nuanced issues such as poor reliability and bias. We review a range of topics including conflicts of interests, competing interests, some particularly challenging situations, reproducibility, bias, and other attributes of ecotoxicological studies that enhance or detract from scientific credibility. Our vision of scientific integrity encourages a self-correcting culture that promotes scientific rigor, relevant reproducible research, transparency in competing interests, methods and results, and education. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000-000. © 2019 SETAC.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPlagiarismEcotoxicologyReproducibility of ResultsScientific MisconductBiasReproducibilityResearch integrityScientific integrityTransparency

Identifiers

PMID30609273
PMCPMC7313240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.