Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39069973›Full record

ReviewACS physical chemistry Au2024

Physical Chemistry Education and Research in an Open-Sourced Future.

Jeffrey T DuBose, Soren B Scott, Benjamin Moss

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS physical chemistry Au, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jeffrey T DuBoseDivision of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7708-4703
Soren B ScottDepartment of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, Copenhagen 2100, Denmark.
Benjamin MossDepartment of Materials & iX institute, Imperial College London Exhibition Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BX, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5786-1587

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proficiency in physical chemistry requires a broad skill set. Successful trainees often receive mentoring from senior colleagues (research advisors, postdocs, etc.). Mentoring introduces trainees to experimental design, instrumental setup, and complex data interpretation. In lab settings, trainees typically learn by customizing experimental setups, and developing new ways of analyzing data. Learning alongside experts strengthens these fundamentals, and places a focus on the clear communication of research problems. However, this level of input is not scalable, nor can it easily be shared with all researchers or students, particularly those that face socioeconomic barriers to accessing mentoring. New approaches to training will therefore progress the field of physical chemistry. Technology is disrupting and democratising scientific education and research. The emergence of free online courses and video resources enables students to learn in a style that suits them. Higher degrees of automation remove cumbersome and sometimes arbitrary technical barriers to learning new techniques, allowing one to collect high quality data quickly. Open sourcing of data and analysis tools has increased transparency, lowered barriers to access, and accelerated scientific dissemination. However, these advances also can lead to "black box" approaches to acquiring and analyzing data, where convenience replaces understanding and errors and misrepresentations become more common. The risk is a breakdown in education:

Identifiers

PMID39069973
PMCPMC11274280

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.