Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39100161›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

We must discuss research environments.

John Gallacher, Chris Webster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. We must discuss research environments.Royal Society open science · 2024
    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

2 authors.

John GallacherDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2394-5299
Chris WebsterHealthy High Density Cities Lab, Department of Urban Planning and Design, HKU Institute of Data Science, HKU Urban Systems Institute, Hong Kong University, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T033371/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major challenge facing the biomedical community is creating and sustaining high-quality research environments. A literature search identified five common themes underlying biomedical research environments comprising collaboration, data access, user-led innovation, data provenance and a deep commitment to public and scientific benefit. Club theory is used to develop a model describing social structures that underpin these themes. It is argued that collaboration underlies impactful science and that collaboration is hindered by high transaction costs. This, combined with poorly defined property rights surrounding publicly funded data, limits the ability of data markets to operate efficiently. Although the science community is best placed to provide solutions for these issues, incentivization by funding agencies to increase the benefits of collaboration and reduce uncoordinated activity will be an accelerator. Given the complexity of emerging datasets and the collaborations needed to exploit them, trust-by-design solutions are suggested. The underlying motivational 'glue' that holds this activity together is the aesthetic and ethical value base underlying good science. The model has implications for data-driven science more generally. As biomedical science in the Global South develops, there is an opportunity to address foundational structural issues prospectively rather than inherit unwanted constraints of current practice.

Indexed as

club theorycollaborationdata marketinnovationresearch environment

Identifiers

PMID39100161
PMCPMC11296060

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.