Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33913617›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2021

Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment.

Theo C M Brock, Kevin C Elliott, Anja Gladbach, Caroline Moermond, Jörg Romeis, Thomas-Benjamin Seiler, Keith Solomon, G Peter Dohmen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Theo C M BrockWageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1842-1597
Kevin C ElliottDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Lyman Briggs College Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Anja GladbachBayer, Germany.
Caroline MoermondNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jörg RomeisResearch Division Agroecology and Environment, Agroscope, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas-Benjamin SeilerHygiene-Institut des Ruhrgebiets, Gelsenkirchen, Germany.
Keith SolomonUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
G Peter DohmenBASF, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A possible way to alleviate the public skepticism toward regulatory science is to increase transparency by making all data and value judgments used in regulatory decision making accessible for public interpretation, ideally early on in the process, and following the concepts of Open Science. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges in strengthening Open Science initiatives in regulatory environmental risk assessment (ERA). In this discussion paper, we argue that the benefits associated with Open Science in regulatory ERA far outweigh its perceived risks. All stakeholders involved in regulatory ERA (e.g., governmental regulatory authorities, private sector, academia, and nongovernmental organizations), as well as professional organizations like the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, can play a key role in supporting the Open Science initiative, by promoting the use of recommended reporting criteria for reliability and relevance of data and tools used in ERA, and by developing a communication strategy for both professionals and nonprofessionals to transparently explain the socioeconomic value judgments and scientific principles underlying regulatory ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:1229-1242. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Indexed as

CommunicationEcotoxicologyEnvironmental MonitoringReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentBuilding trustData qualityProblem formulationProspective environmental risk assessmentTransparency

Identifiers

PMID33913617
PMCPMC8596791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.