ArticlePeerJ2020
The importance of open science for biological assessment of aquatic environments.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating open education practices with data analysis of open science in an undergraduate course.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Random Forest models to estimate bankfull and low flow channel widths and depths across the conterminous United States.Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2023Article
- A multiscale landscape approach for prioritizing river and stream protection and restoration actions.Ecosphere (Washington, D.C) · 2023Article
- Openness as Organizing Principle: Introduction to the Special Issue.Organization studies · 2023Article
- A web-based tool for assessing the condition of benthic diatom assemblages in streams and rivers of the conterminous United States.Ecological indicators · 2022Article
- Institutionalizing Open Science in Africa: Limitations and Prospects.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Review
- Biomarker Studies in Stress Biology: From the Gene to Population, from the Organism to the Application.Biology · 2021Article
- Article
- Pond Acoustic Sampling Scheme: A draft protocol for rapid acoustic data collection in small waterbodies.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open science principles that seek to improve science can effectively bridge the gap between researchers and environmental managers. However, widespread adoption has yet to gain traction for the development and application of bioassessment products. At the core of this philosophy is the concept that research should be reproducible and transparent, in addition to having long-term value through effective data preservation and sharing. In this article, we review core open science concepts that have recently been adopted in the ecological sciences and emphasize how adoption can benefit the field of bioassessment for both prescriptive condition assessments and proactive applications that inform environmental management. An example from the state of California demonstrates effective adoption of open science principles through data stewardship, reproducible research, and engagement of stakeholders with multimedia applications. We also discuss technical, sociocultural, and institutional challenges for adopting open science, including practical approaches for overcoming these hurdles in bioassessment applications.
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.