ArticleJournal of open access to law2023
Openness in Scientific Research: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective.
Article in Journal of open access to law, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open practices across science, software, education and other domains.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Increasing Methodological Transparency and Openness in Rehabilitation-Related Health Services Research Using Claims Data: A Case Example.Physical therapy · 2025Article
- Development of a method for qualitative data integration to advance implementation science within research consortia.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Open Science at the generative AI turn: An exploratory analysis of challenges and opportunities.Quantitative science studies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Openness is widely regarded as a pillar of scientific ethics because it promotes reproducibility and progress in science and benefits society. However, the sharing of scientific information can sometimes adversely impact the interests of human research participants, human communities or populations, scientists, and private research sponsors; and may threaten national security. Because openness may conflict with other important social values, solutions to ethical and policy dilemmas should include meaningful input from those who are impacted by the sharing and use of scientific information, including research participants, communities, and the public. Data sharing and use policies should be reviewed and revised periodically to account for ongoing changes in science, technology, and society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37994350PMC10665006What 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.