Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37859842›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2023

Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.

Michelle Jin Yee Neoh, Alessandro Carollo, Albert Lee, Gianluca Esposito

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Michelle Jin Yee NeohPsychology Program, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639818, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-5960-1634
Alessandro CarolloDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Rovereto 38068, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2737-0218
Albert LeePsychology Program, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639818, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2352-999X
Gianluca EspositoDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Rovereto 38068, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9442-0254

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing).

Indexed as

ethics of researchquestionable research practisesscientific integrity

Identifiers

PMID37859842
PMCPMC10582594

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.