Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37476516›Full record

ReviewRoyal Society open science2023

Perspectives on scientific error.

D van Ravenzwaaij, M Bakker, R Heesen, F Romero, N van Dongen, S Crüwell, S M Field, L Held, M R Munafò, M M Pittelkow and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Who Should Be Accountable for Scientific Accountability?JACC. Basic to translational science · 2023
    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

15 authors.

D van RavenzwaaijDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Heymans Building, room 239, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5030-4091
M BakkerTilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands.
R HeesenUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3823-944X
F RomeroDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Heymans Building, room 239, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
N van DongenUniversity of Amsterdam, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S CrüwellDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK.
S M FieldCentre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, 2311 EZ Leiden, The Netherlands.
L HeldUniversity of Zurich, 8006 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8686-5325
M R MunafòSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
M M PittelkowDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Heymans Building, room 239, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7487-7898
L TiokhinIG&H Consulting, 3528 AC Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7333-0383
V A TraagCentre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, 2311 EZ Leiden, The Netherlands.
O R van den AkkerTilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands.
A E van 't VeerMethodology and Statistics Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, 2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands.
E J WagenmakersUniversity of Amsterdam, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on

Indexed as

institutional reformmeta-sciencemethodologypublishingscientific error

Identifiers

PMID37476516
PMCPMC10354464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.