ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2024
Open instrumentation, like open data, is key to reproducible science. Yet, without incentives it won't thrive.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open-source electrophilic fragment screening platform to identify chemical starting points for UCHL1 covalent inhibitors.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 2024Article
- Open, reproducible hardware for microscopy.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024Article
- Additive fabrication for NMR probe builders.Progress in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is far more to open science than simply not shutting away your work. For example, a significant time investment must be made to collate, curate, explain and document precisely how an experiment can be reproduced or data can be reused. This time investment is currently poorly rewarded in our current model of open science where a bare minimum of openness is mandated, but further work is not recognized. As the open science movement looks beyond open access publications and open data towards ongoing detailed work such as open source software and open source hardware, it needs to consider how to properly encourage the extra work that is needed to properly document these projects. Without detailed documentation, the work cannot be replicated, reused and continually improved. If the work cannot be replicated or reused, is it really even open? This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Open, reproducible hardware for microscopy'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.