ReviewNature human behaviour2023
Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science.
Review in Nature human behaviour, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global evolution of robot-assisted spine surgery: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping study (1997-2026).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Indigenization and inclusion in Chinese academia.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- SciSciGPT: advancing human-AI collaboration in the science of science.Nature computational science · 2026Article
- Gender and disciplinary differences in grant proposal peer review: Content and sentiment in 39,280 reports.PloS one · 2026Article
- The distinctive innovation patterns and network embeddedness of scientific prizewinners.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The Landscape of Wearable Sensors and Automated Literature Analysis with Large-Language Models.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Tenure and research trajectories.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Use of Promotional Language in Grant Applications and Grant Success.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Quantifying the use and potential benefits of artificial intelligence in scientific research.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Quantifying social media predictors of violence during the 6 January US Capitol insurrection using Granger causality.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Publication, funding, and experimental data in support of Human Reference Atlas construction and usage.Scientific data · 2024Article
- SciSciNet: A large-scale open data lake for the science of science research.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Research trends in drama therapy: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus.Frontiers in psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of large-scale datasets that trace the workings of science has encouraged researchers from many different disciplinary backgrounds to turn scientific methods into science itself, cultivating a rapidly expanding 'science of science'. This Review considers this growing, multidisciplinary literature through the lens of data, measurement and empirical methods. We discuss the purposes, strengths and limitations of major empirical approaches, seeking to increase understanding of the field's diverse methodologies and expand researchers' toolkits. Overall, new empirical developments provide enormous capacity to test traditional beliefs and conceptual frameworks about science, discover factors associated with scientific productivity, predict scientific outcomes and design policies that facilitate scientific progress.
Identifiers
37264084What 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.