ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- A metric of knowledge as information compression reflects reproducibility predictions for biomedical experiments.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Hierarchical consciousness: the Nested Observer Windows model.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2024Article
- Unburdening the Shoulders of Giants: A Quest for Disconnected Academic Psychology.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2020Article
- Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences.Scientometrics · 2020Article
- Doing the Same Thing and Expecting a Different Outcome: It Is Time for a Questioning Philosophy and Theory-Driven Chiropractic Research.Journal of chiropractic humanities · 2019Review
- The Easy Part of the Hard Problem: A Resonance Theory of Consciousness.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Review
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
This article proposes quantitative answers to meta-scientific questions including 'how much knowledge is attained by a research field?', 'how rapidly is a field making progress?', 'what is the expected reproducibility of a result?', 'how much knowledge is lost from scientific bias and misconduct?', 'what do we mean by soft science?', and 'what demarcates a pseudoscience?'. Knowledge is suggested to be a system-specific property measured by
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.