ArticleBMC research notes2022
Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined.
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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing the trustworthiness of non-randomized studies of interventions: a survey of international experts.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Enhancing translational research in metastatic cancer through an open science environment: the UPTIDER experience.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Exploring ethical elements in reporting guidelines: results from a research-on-research study.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- A twofold perspective on the quality of research publications: The use of ICTs and research activity models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Minimum elements for reporting a multi-jurisdiction feasibility assessment of algorithms based on routinely collected health data: Health Data Research Network Canada recommendations.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Open Science at the generative AI turn: An exploratory analysis of challenges and opportunities.Quantitative science studies · 2025Article
- From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies.PloS one · 2025Article
- Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Accelerating progress in cardiology: embracing open science.Open heart · 2024Article
- A pathway to strengthening open science: comments on the draftFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Reply to: Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Opening up mental health research.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPNArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proponents of open science often refer to issues pertaining to research integrity and vice versa. In this commentary, we argue that concepts such as responsible research practices, transparency, and open science are connected to one another, but that they each have a different focus. We argue that responsible research practices focus more on the rigorous conduct of research, transparency focuses predominantly on the complete reporting of research, and open science's core focus is mostly about dissemination of research. Doing justice to these concepts requires action from researchers and research institutions to make research with integrity possible, easy, normative, and rewarding. For each of these levels from the Center for Open Science pyramid of behaviour change, we provide suggestions on what researchers and research institutions can do to promote a culture of research integrity. We close with a brief reflection on initiatives by other research communities and stakeholders and make a call to those working in the fields of research integrity and open science to pay closer attention to one other's work.
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.