Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31543946›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2018

The case for openness in engineering research.

Devin R Berg, Kyle E Niemeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Devin R BergEngineering & Technology Department, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI, 54751, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1193-3848
Kyle E NiemeyerSchool of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4425-7097

Funding

Promoting Institutional Communities for Open Data ScienceU24ES026465 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI VAN HORN, JOHN DARRELL · 2015 to 2017
$7.6M
NIEHS NIH HHS U24 ES026465Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we describe our views on the benefits, and possible downsides, of openness in engineering research. We attempt to examine the issue from multiple perspectives, including reasons and motivations for introducing open practices into an engineering researcher's workflow and the challenges faced by scholars looking to do so. Further, we present our thoughts and reflections on the role that open engineering research can play in defining the purpose and activities of the university. We have made some specific recommendations on how the public university can recommit to and push the boundaries of its role as the creator and promoter of public knowledge. In doing so, the university will further demonstrate its vital role in the continued economic, social, and technological development of society. We have also included some thoughts on how this applies specifically to the field of engineering and how a culture of openness and sharing within the engineering community can help drive societal development.

Indexed as

EngineeringResearch PersonnelHumansUniversitiesengineeringopen accessopen engineeringopen scienceresearch dissemination

Identifiers

PMID31543946
PMCPMC6733375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.