ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
The needed link between open science and science diplomacy-A Latin American perspective.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leadership and inequality in latin american neurosurgery, 2000-2024: a bibliometric and geospatial study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relevance of science diplomacy and open science in today's world is undeniable. Science diplomacy enables countries to jointly address pressing global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, and food security. Open science, promoting accessible and transparent research, plays a pivotal role in this context. Nevertheless, the degree of openness is subject to specific circumstances, contingent upon varying factors, including local knowledge and resources. Latin America has not only been at the forefront of pioneering open access strategies, making it an interesting case to study, but it has also shown a tangible interest in using science diplomacy. Our research employs a mixed-methods approach, incorporating a quantitative survey involving 50 organizations and initiatives dedicated to promoting open science in Latin America, along with two qualitative focus group studies. Our primary objective is to assess if and how these entities use science diplomacy to achieve their objectives. Non-policy entities were prioritized due to their institutional stability in the region. We highlight successful strategies and delve into the existing barriers hindering the full implementation of open science principles. Our research aims to enhance collaboration between these organizations and policy and decision-makers by providing a set of recommendations in that direction. By shedding light on the current landscape and dynamics of open science in Latin America, we aspire to focus on science diplomacy, facilitate informed decision-making, and formulate policies that further propel the region along the path of openness, collaboration, and innovation in scientific research.
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.