ArticleiScience2020
The Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods.
Article in iScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating LC-HRMS metabolomics data processing software using FAIR principles for research software.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2023Pooled it
- Large Language Models in Preclinical Spine Research: A Scoping Review and Expert Perspective on Evidence-Aware Experimental Workflows.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Highlighting Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency of Research in an Academic CV.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Publishing gold standard science.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Article
- Neurosurgical journals' policies on artificial intelligence use in manuscript preparation and peer review.Neurosurgical review · 2025Review
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in the peer review of neurosurgical research articles.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Misidentified cell lines: failures of peer review, varying journal responses to misidentification inquiries, and strategies for safeguarding biomedical research.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- A scoping review on metrics to quantify reproducibility: a multitude of questions leads to a multitude of metrics.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- How Transparent and Reproducible Are Studies That Use Animal Models of Opioid Addiction?Addiction biology · 2025Article
- Automatic detection and extraction of key resources from tables in biomedical papers.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Developing a multiscale neural connectivity knowledgebase of the autonomic nervous system.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Modeling reproductive and pregnancy-associated tissues using organ-on-chip platforms: challenges, limitations, and the high throughput data frontier.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact.PloS one · 2025Article
- Automatic Detection and Extraction of Key Resources from Tables in Biomedical Papers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Antibody characterization is critical to enhance reproducibility in biomedical research.eLife · 2024Review
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The reproducibility crisis is a multifaceted problem involving ingrained practices within the scientific community. Fortunately, some causes are addressed by the author's adherence to rigor and reproducibility criteria, implemented via checklists at various journals. We developed an automated tool (SciScore) that evaluates research articles based on their adherence to key rigor criteria, including NIH criteria and RRIDs, at an unprecedented scale. We show that despite steady improvements, less than half of the scoring criteria, such as blinding or power analysis, are routinely addressed by authors; digging deeper, we examined the influence of specific checklists on average scores. The average score for a journal in a given year was named the Rigor and Transparency Index (RTI), a new journal quality metric. We compared the RTI with the Journal Impact Factor and found there was no correlation. The RTI can potentially serve as a proxy for methodological quality.
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.