ArticleBMC biology2021
Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.
Article in BMC biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Pooled it
- Quality Assurance Framework for the Design, Collection and Curation of Standard Data Products From a Distributed Ecology Network.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- A systematic map of generative AI guidelines and reporting in ecology and evolutionary biology: towards the framework of AI disclosure for Improved Transparency (AIdIT).Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Open Science in Undergraduate Medical Education: An International Framework for Transparency, Responsibility, and Professional Identity Formation.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- From policy to practice: progress towards data- and code-sharing in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- MacaqueNet: Advancing comparative behavioural research through large-scale collaboration.The Journal of animal ecology · 2025Article
- Poor hypotheses and research waste in biology: learning from a theory crisis in psychology.BMC biology · 2025Review
- How will we prepare for an uncertain future? The value of open data and code for unborn generations facing climate change.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Overcoming the pitfalls of categorizing continuous variables in ecology, evolution and behaviour.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Are Open Science instructions targeted to ecologists and evolutionary biologists sufficient? A literature review of guidelines and journal data policies.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- "Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- A practical guide to cross-cultural and multi-sited data collection in the biological and behavioural sciences.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Accelerating the open research agenda to solve global challenges.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- FISHGLOB_data: an integrated dataset of fish biodiversity sampled with scientific bottom-trawl surveys.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Computationally reproducing results from meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology using shared code and data.PloS one · 2024Article
- Reproductive system, temperature, and genetic background effects in experimentally evolving populations of Caenorhabditis elegans.PloS one · 2024Article
- The genomic response to urbanization in the damselflyEvolutionary applications · 2023Article
- Importance of timely metadata curation to the global surveillance of genetic diversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023Article
- Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology.BMC biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to the horizon to imagine how researchers and institutions can clear the path towards more credible and effective research programmes.
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.