ArticleAccountability in research2024
Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.
Article in Accountability in research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- The Influence of Principlism on the Field of Research Integrity.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Endorsement of scientific norms among non-scientists: The role of science news consumption, political ideology, and science field.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Value-aware nutrition science: building credibility through reflexivity.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- Open Science at the generative AI turn: An exploratory analysis of challenges and opportunities.Quantitative science studies · 2025Article
- Diverse sources of normativity in open science and their implications for ethical governance.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Openness in Scientific Research: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective.Journal of open access to law · 2023Article
- Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review.Research square · 2023Article
- Special libraries, special challenges: An ethical framework for access to problematic historical medical films.Public services quarterlyArticle
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
Abstract
Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.
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.