ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019
Signaling the trustworthiness of science.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Representation in science and trust in scientists in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- A survey of how biology researchers assess credibility when serving on grant and hiring committees.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Impact of a Spanish for Specific Purposes in Agriculture Curriculum for Animal Science and Veterinary Students on Animal Welfare Knowledge of Spanish-Speaking Livestock Workers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- "Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Finding common ground: Understanding and engaging with science mistrust in the Great barrier reef region.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Protecting the integrity of survey research.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- Both trust in, and polarization of trust in, relevant sciences have increased through the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2023Article
- Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics.PloS one · 2023Article
- Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Developing an open science 'mindset'.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2022Review
- Signaling the trustworthiness of science should not be a substitute for direct action against research misconduct.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Reply to Kornfeld and Titus: No distraction from misconduct.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- A survey of accepted authors in computer systems conferences.PeerJ. Computer science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust in science increases when scientists and the outlets certifying their work honor science's norms. Scientists often fail to signal to other scientists and, perhaps more importantly, the public that these norms are being upheld. They could do so as they generate, certify, and react to each other's findings: for example, by promoting the use and value of evidence, transparent reporting, self-correction, replication, a culture of critique, and controls for bias. A number of approaches for authors and journals would lead to more effective signals of trustworthiness at the article level. These include article badging, checklists, a more extensive withdrawal ontology, identity verification, better forward linking, and greater transparency.
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.