ArticlePLoS biology2020
Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative.
Article in PLoS biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- From concept to measurement: operationalizing and normalizing Integrity Risk Indicators by SCImago (IRIS).Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Exploring Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in youth mental health: reflections from researchers and young people.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Why too much biomedical research is often undeserving of the public's trust.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- The use and application of Lean Management methods to research processes-a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024Review
- Article
- Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Advancing reproducibility can ease the 'hard truths' of synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Finding the best fit for improving reproducibility: reflections from the QUEST Center for Responsible Research.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Do German university medical centres promote robust and transparent research? A cross-sectional study of institutional policies.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Stakeholders' views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research.PloS one · 2022Article
- Reproducibility and research integrity: the role of scientists and institutions.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- RipetaScore: Measuring the Quality, Transparency, and Trustworthiness of a Scientific Work.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Combining Animal Welfare With Experimental Rigor to Improve Reproducibility in Behavioral Neuroscience.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021Review
- Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reproducibility crisis triggered worldwide initiatives to improve rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in biomedical research. There are many examples of scientists, journals, and funding agencies adopting responsible research practices. The QUEST (Quality-Ethics-Open Science-Translation) Center offers a unique opportunity to examine the role of institutions. The Berlin Institute of Health founded QUEST to increase the likelihood that research conducted at this large academic medical center would be trustworthy, useful for scientists and society, and ethical. QUEST researchers perform "science of science" studies to understand problems with standard practices and develop targeted solutions. The staff work with institutional leadership and local scientists to incentivize and support responsible practices in research, funding, and hiring. Some activities described in this paper focus on the institution, whereas others may benefit the national and international scientific community. Our experience, approaches, and recommendations will be informative for faculty leadership, administrators, and researchers interested in improving scientific practice.
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.