ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2021
No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers' epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shedding light on public perceptions of scientists who engage in wrongness admission amidst a failed replication.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Narratives of hope and concern? Examining the impact of climate scientists' communication on credibility and engagement.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Complexity appreciated: How the communication of complexity impacts topic-specific intellectual humility and epistemic trustworthiness.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science should be self-correcting. However, researchers often hesitate to admit errors and to adopt reforms in their own work. In two studies (overall
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.