ReviewSustainability science2021
Endangering the integrity of science by misusing unvalidated models and untested assumptions as facts: General considerations and the mineral and phosphorus scarcity fallacy.
Review in Sustainability science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phosphorus mining and bioavailability for plant acquisition: environmental sustainability perspectives.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2025Review
- Phosphorus applications adjusted to optimal crop yields can help sustain global phosphorus reserves.Nature food · 2024Article
- Unraveling plant-microbe interactions: can integrated omics approaches offer concrete answers?Journal of experimental botany · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is increasing demand for science to contribute to solving societal problems (solutionism). Thereby, scientists may become normative activists for solving certain problems (advocacy). When doing this, they may insufficiently differentiate between scientific and political modes of reasoning and validation (de-differentiationism), which is sometimes linked to questionable forms of utilizing the force of facts (German: Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-021-01006-w.
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.