Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36820304›Full record

ArticleSN social sciences2023

Factors affecting the independence and reliability of Science and how these are perceived.

Georgios A Florides, Paul Christodoulides

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SN social sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Georgios A FloridesFaculty of Engineering and Technology, Cyprus University of Technology, 3603 Limassol, Cyprus.
Paul ChristodoulidesFaculty of Engineering and Technology, Cyprus University of Technology, 3603 Limassol, Cyprus.ORCID 0000-0002-2229-8798

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science studies natural phenomena or uses laws, theories, models and mechanisms to explain them, which are revised when new evidence emerges. However, Science cannot give answer to all questions that may arise. The benefits of science are well known and there is no reason to expand on them. It is of interest though to examine the structure and factors that influence the scientific world and may hold it back from offering greater benefits to mankind. The current study is concerned with the question whether or not Science is independent and reliable. Social and political reasons can direct substantive research in specific areas, but they can also encourage the promotion of unfounded theories. External factors such as prejudice against new ideas and understanding of natural happenings can negatively affect the objectivity of Science. Such factors examined in this paper and influence Science are: Research funding, policy makers and industry; Journal editors; Dogma; Theories declared as Conspiracies; Mutual interests in Academia; Knowledge control, cover ups and war superiority. The above factors can be used negatively to restrain serious scientists from expressing educated opinions and publishing them in scientific journals. In this way healthy discussions between 'opposing parties' are restricted, with Science being the victim as no sound conclusions and consensus on important subjects are reached. To check how the above positions are perceived by the scientific community, a questionnaire was circulated among scientists in 11 countries. Analyzing the 106 responds that were anonymously received, indicated that the respondents were largely in line with the expressed positions of the present paper. It is proposed that the real answer to minimize the effect of the factors that influence Science negatively, is educating people's critical abilities and considering nothing for granted-especially under the influence of powerful Media-unless its validity is independently checked and verified.

Indexed as

AcademiaConspiracyDogmaJournal editorsKnowledge controlResearch fundingWar superiority

Identifiers

PMID36820304
PMCPMC9931168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.