ArticlePLoS biology2021
From grassroots to global: A blueprint for building a reproducibility network.
Article in PLoS biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Building a synthesis-ready research ecosystem: fostering collaboration and open science to accelerate biomedical translation.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Fostering cultural change in research through innovative knowledge sharing, evaluation, and community engagement strategies.NPJ science of learning · 2026Review
- Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- UK Reproducibility Network open and transparent research practices survey dataset.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Article
- Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Using preregistration as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
- Advancing reproducibility can ease the 'hard truths' of synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Improving the reproducibility and integrity of research: what can different stakeholders contribute?BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Reforms to improve reproducibility and quality must be coordinated across the research ecosystem: the view from the UKRN Local Network Leads.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- The reproducibility debate is an opportunity, not a crisis.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement.BMC research notes · 2021Article
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
Researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers are considering how to improve research culture and quality, but no single part of the research ecosystem can effect change on its own. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) was established to facilitate the necessary coordination. Its experience can inform the establishment of like-minded networks around the world to drive positive change.
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.