ArticleeLife2020
Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible.
Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Practical lessons from microbiome citizen-science projects.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- False authorship: an explorative case study around an AI-generated article published under my name.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- The enigma of journal impact factors: determinants of impact factors for journals in General and Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anaesthesiology.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- "Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Improving academic mentorship practices.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).Heliyon · 2024Article
- Catalyzing communities of research rigour champions.Brain communications · 2024Article
- Citations in Chemistry at the Dawn of Open Science.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Journal impact factors and the future of open access publishing.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Collective action is needed to build a more just science system.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Article
- Identifying science in the news: An assessment of the precision and recall of Altmetric.com news mention data.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Creating SPACE to evolve academic assessment.eLife · 2021Article
- Article-Level Metrics.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Review
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was published in 2013 and described how funding agencies, institutions, publishers, organizations that supply metrics, and individual researchers could better evaluate the outputs of scientific research. Since then DORA has evolved into an active initiative that gives practical advice to institutions on new ways to assess and evaluate research. This article outlines a framework for driving institutional change that was developed at a meeting convened by DORA and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The framework has four broad goals: understanding the obstacles to changes in the way research is assessed; experimenting with different approaches; creating a shared vision when revising existing policies and practices; and communicating that vision on campus and beyond.
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.