Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35421988›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2022

A network of change: united action on research integrity.

Thomas Rhys Evans, Madeleine Pownall, Elizabeth Collins, Emma L Henderson, Jade S Pickering, Aoife O'Mahony, Mirela Zaneva, Matt Jaquiery, Tsvetomira Dumbalska

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Thomas Rhys EvansSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, England. thomas.evans@greenwich.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-0718
Madeleine PownallUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Elizabeth CollinsUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.
Emma L HendersonUniversity of Surrey, Surrey, England.
Jade S PickeringUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, England.
Aoife O'MahonySchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.
Mirela ZanevaOxford University, Oxford, England.
Matt JaquieryOxford University, Oxford, England.
Tsvetomira DumbalskaOxford University, Oxford, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The last decade has seen renewed concern within the scientific community over the reproducibility and transparency of research findings. This paper outlines some of the various responsibilities of stakeholders in addressing the systemic issues that contribute to this concern. In particular, this paper asserts that a united, joined-up approach is needed, in which all stakeholders, including researchers, universities, funders, publishers, and governments, work together to set standards of research integrity and engender scientific progress and innovation. Using two developments as examples: the adoption of Registered Reports as a discrete initiative, and the use of open data as an ongoing norm change, we discuss the importance of collaboration across stakeholders.

Indexed as

GovernmentResearch PersonnelHumansReproducibility of ResultsUniversitiesCollaborationOpen DataOpen researchRegistered ReportsReproducibilityResearch integrityResearch stakeholders

Identifiers

PMID35421988
PMCPMC9008612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.