ReviewPLoS computational biology2023
Ten simple rules for implementing open and reproducible research practices after attending a training course.
Review in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Doctored: fraud, arrogance, and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer's": an important new book with direct relevance to GeroScience.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for leading a many-author non-empirical paper.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for being a co-author on a many-author non-empirical paper.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Advancing bioinformatics capacity through Nextflow and nf-core: lessons from an early-to mid-career researchers-focused program at The Kids Research Institute Australia.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Daily life in the Open Biologist's second job, as a Data Curator.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Article
- Pragmatic reproducible research: improving the research process from raw data to results, bit by bit.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open, reproducible, and replicable research practices are a fundamental part of science. Training is often organized on a grassroots level, offered by early career researchers, for early career researchers. Buffet style courses that cover many topics can inspire participants to try new things; however, they can also be overwhelming. Participants who want to implement new practices may not know where to start once they return to their research team. We describe ten simple rules to guide participants of relevant training courses in implementing robust research practices in their own projects, once they return to their research group. This includes (1) prioritizing and planning which practices to implement, which involves obtaining support and convincing others involved in the research project of the added value of implementing new practices; (2) managing problems that arise during implementation; and (3) making reproducible research and open science practices an integral part of a future research career. We also outline strategies that course organizers can use to prepare participants for implementation and support them during this process.
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.