ArticlePLoS biology2023
Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.
Article in PLoS biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open science practices and feedback-based pedagogy in nanomedicine education: a moderated mediation model of glioma treatment competency.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Open Science Policies and Practices Among Medical Journals.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Core open science practices in major medical journals: development of an automatized tool based on a Large Language Model.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- Towards monitoring of global health research: an exploratory analysis of transparency and stakeholder engagement.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Enhancing translational research in metastatic cancer through an open science environment: the UPTIDER experience.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Teaching surgeons to question the evidence: should surgical meta-research be embedded early in undergraduate and residency training?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- How long does it take to complete and publish a systematic review of animal studies?BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Extent of Open Science Practices in the Reporting of Real World Evidence Research.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- A how-to guide for code sharing in biology.PLoS biology · 2024Review
- ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Characteristics of non-randomised studies of drug treatments: cross sectional study.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study.PLoS medicine · 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
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.
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.