ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
On the difficulties of being rigorous in environmental geochemistry studies: some recommendations for designing an impactful paper.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- TransgenicFrontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Improving the design and implementation of sediment fingerprinting studies: summary and outcomes of the TRACING 2021 Scientific School.Journal of soils and sediments · 2022Article
- Potentially toxic elements in groundwater: a hotspot research topic in environmental science and pollution research.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
- Characteristics and Assessment of Toxic Metal Contamination in Surface Water and Sediments Near a Uranium Mining Area.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- It's Time to Replace the Term "Heavy Metals" with "Potentially Toxic Elements" When Reporting Environmental Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There have been numerous environmental geochemistry studies using chemical, geological, ecological, and toxicological methods but each of these fields requires more subject specialist rigour than has generally been applied so far. Field-specific terminology has been misused and the resulting interpretations rendered inaccurate. In this paper, we propose a series of suggestions, based on our experience as teachers, researchers, reviewers, and editorial board members, to help authors to avoid pitfalls. Many scientific inaccuracies continue to be unchecked and are repeatedly republished by the scientific community. These recommendations should help our colleagues and editorial board members, as well as reviewers, to avoid the numerous inaccuracies and misconceptions currently in circulation and establish a trend towards greater rigour in scientific writing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31745782What 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.