ArticleNucleic acid therapeutics2021
Researcher's Perceptions on Publishing "Negative" Results and Open Access.
Article in Nucleic acid therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Molecular and functional changes in neutrophilic granulocytes induced by nicotine: a systematic review and critical evaluation.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Reporting negative results - the strength of communicating findings.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- The rationality guidance index: a framework for reducing redundancy in nanomedicine innovation.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Circulating biomarkers in pulmonary arterial hypertension: State-of-the-art review and future directions.JHLT open · 2024Review
- The bioinformatics landscape in environmental omics: Lessons from a national ELIXIR survey.iScience · 2024Article
- An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Illuminating dark data: Advancing spinal cord medicine through reporting on "negative" data.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2024Article
- Publishing Negative Results of Neurobiological Studies in Mental Disorders Will Advance Knowledge in Pathophysiology.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of publication of pediatric global health abstracts from seven major international conferences.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Reframing the perception of outliers and negative data in translational research.Brain research bulletin · 2023Review
- Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist.Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
- Article
- Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
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
Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action "DARTER", a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of "negative" results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.
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.