ArticleQuality & quantity2022
Improving the reproducibility of findings by updating research methodology.
Article in Quality & quantity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new data science trajectory for analysing multiple studies: a case study in physical activity research.MethodsX · 2025Article
- The Integrative Single-Case Design as a Biosemiotic-Systemic Research Tool in Psychoneuroimmunology.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Measuring entrepreneurial orientation and institutional theory for informal enterprises: scale validation.Quality & quantity · 2023Article
- Optimization of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit protocol to detect trimethylamine N-oxide levels in humans.EXCLI journal · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The literature discusses causes of low reproducibility of scientific publications. Our article adds another main cause-uncritical adherence to accepted research procedures. This is evident in: (1) anachronistically requiring researchers to base themselves on theoretical background even if the studies cited were not tested for reproducibility; (2) conducting studies suffering from a novelty effect bias; (3) forcing researchers who use data mining methods and field-based theory, with no preliminary theoretical rationale, to present a theoretical background that allegedly guided their work-as a precondition for publication of their findings. It is possible to increase research validity in relation to the above problems by the following means: (1) Conducting a longitudinal study on the same participants and only on them; (2) Trying to shorten the time period between laboratory experiments and those on humans, based on cost-benefit considerations, anchored in ethical norms; (3) Reporting the theoretical background in a causal modular format; (4) Giving incentives to those who meet the above criteria while moderating the pressure for fast output.
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.