ArticleF1000Research2019
Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists.
Article in F1000Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring gait automaticity and prefrontal brain activity during single and dual-task walking in aging and Parkinson's disease.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024Review
- The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Not all pre-registrations are equal.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022Article
- Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Article
- Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2021Article
- Ten simple rules for open human health research.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Six Laws of Open Source Drug Discovery.ChemMedChem · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The fundamental goal of the growing open science movement is to increase the efficiency of the global scientific community and accelerate progress and discoveries for the common good. Central to this principle is the rapid disclosure of research outputs in open-access peer-reviewed journals and on pre-print servers. The next bold step in this direction is open laboratory notebooks, where research scientists share their research - including detailed protocols, negative and positive results - online and in near-real-time to synergize with their peers. Here, we highlight the benefits of open lab notebooks to science, society and scientists, and discuss the challenges that this nascent movement is facing. We also present the implementation and progress of our own initiative at openlabnotebooks.org, with more than 20 active contributors after one year of operation.
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.