ArticlePLoS biology2021
Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?
Article in PLoS biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 3 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
69 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Building a synthesis-ready research ecosystem: fostering collaboration and open science to accelerate biomedical translation.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Open Science Policies and Practices Among Medical Journals.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Who Funds Open Data Sharing? Analysis of data availability statements in biomedical publications.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Improving Scientific Research: Renegotiated Principles of Science, Proposals, Failures, and Successes.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Moving from disclosure to substance in AI transparency.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Data sharing in acupuncture meta-analyses: Associations with journal policies and practical considerations.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Core open science practices in major medical journals: development of an automatized tool based on a Large Language Model.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- An assessment of data and code sharing in research funded by the Nathan Shock Centers, 2017-2022: a meta-research study.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Changes in ethics and transparency reporting in dental journal articles between 2021 and 2025: a full-text cross-journal analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Using reporting guidelines to improve the reproducibility of cooking Christmas tree meringues: the "People tasting trees" cluster-randomised controlled trial.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Provenance and Funding of Extremely Cited Biomedical Articles Published Between 2003 and 2024.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Improving transparency in clinical trial reporting.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Describing the landscape of nutrition- and diet-related randomized controlled trials: metaresearch study of protocols published between 2012 and 2022.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Guidance for sharing computational models of neural stimulation: from project planning to publication.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Review
- Indicators of transparency and data sharing in scientific writing in published randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals between 2019 and 2023: an empirical study.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Transparency, bias, and reproducibility across science: a meta-research view.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2024Article
- Prerequisite for reproducible science: a call to embrace code sharing.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Article
9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science.
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.