ArticleeLife2021
A community-led initiative for training in reproducible research.
Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international consensus on core reproducibility items in research.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Catalyzing computational biology research at an academic institute through an interest network.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Modular, focused data science education improves biomedical learners' abilities: A study of the Data and Analytics for Research Training (DART) program.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Research culture in biomedicine: what we learned, and what we would like to do about it.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Editorial: Reproducible analysis in neuroscience.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Article
- The effect of training medical students in the community area in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic in China: a community-based study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- An international consensus on effective, inclusive, and career-spanning short-format training in the life sciences and beyond.PloS one · 2023Article
- Editorial: Reproducibility in neuroscience.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2023Article
- Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice.PLoS biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open and reproducible research practices increase the reusability and impact of scientific research. The reproducibility of research results is influenced by many factors, most of which can be addressed by improved education and training. Here we describe how workshops developed by the Reproducibility for Everyone (R4E) initiative can be customized to provide researchers at all career stages and across most disciplines with education and training in reproducible research practices. The R4E initiative, which is led by volunteers, has reached more than 3000 researchers worldwide to date, and all workshop materials, including accompanying resources, are available under a CC-BY 4.0 license at https://www.repro4everyone.org/.
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.