ArticlePLoS biology2020
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.
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 122 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
122 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 509 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Risk of bias and certainty of evidence on the association between obesity and mortality in patients with SARS-COV-2: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 2023Pooled it
- Global Ophthalmology Research Output Relative to Disease Burden and National Income, 2011-2021.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Open Science Policies and Practices Among Medical Journals.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Research waste before research begins: the problem of research-priority mismatch in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- The Challenges of Scientific Publishing: An Editor-In-Chief's Perspective.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- From concept to measurement: operationalizing and normalizing Integrity Risk Indicators by SCImago (IRIS).Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Perceptions of challenges in clinical pediatric research: a survey of Italian pediatricians.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Understanding of Authorship Guidelines and the Frequency of Authorship Misuse: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study in the State of Qatar.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Creating a responsible authorship culture in science: Anchoring authorship practices in principles of transparency, credit, and accountability.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Collective action for responsible global health data sharing and use.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- A new benchmark for research integrity: innovation in the artificial intelligence era and safeguarding the reliability of the scholarly research published in Women's Health Nursing.Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Time, Quality, and Integrity: Temporal Autonomy as a Missing Link in Research Assessment Reform.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Open Access: hearing the music but not knowing the lyrics. The evolution of knowledge and perceptions among researchers at a Spanish university (2021-2024).Open research Europe · 2026Article
- The Impact of COVID-19 on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Children with Special Education Needs and Disabilities: A Systematic Review.Review journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Review
- Core open science practices in major medical journals: development of an automatized tool based on a Large Language Model.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- Unmasking the ethical dimensions of data-sharing in health research: perspectives from researchers at a public university in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.
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.