Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39179613›Full record

ArticleScientific data2024

UK Reproducibility Network open and transparent research practices survey dataset.

Lukas Hughes-Noehrer, Noémie Aubert Bonn, Marcello De Maria, Thomas Rhys Evans, Emily K Farran, Laura Fortunato, Emma L Henderson, Neil Jacobs, Marcus R Munafò, Suzanne L K Stewart and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Lukas Hughes-NoehrerUniversity of Manchester, Department of Computer Science, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. lukas.noehrer@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9167-0397
Noémie Aubert BonnUniversity of Manchester, Department of Computer Science, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0252-2331
Marcello De MariaUniversity of Reading, Department of Agri-Food Economics and Marketing, Reading, RG6 6AH, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1969-0251
Thomas Rhys EvansUniversity of Greenwich, School of Human Sciences, London, SE10 9LS, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-0718
Emily K FarranUniversity of Surrey, School of Psychology, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Laura FortunatoUniversity of Oxford, Institute of Human Sciences, Oxford, OX2 6PE, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8546-9497
Emma L HendersonUniversity of Surrey, School of Psychology, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Neil JacobsUniversity of Bristol, School of Psychological Science, Bristol, BS8 1TU, United Kingdom.
Marcus R MunafòUniversity of Bristol, School of Psychological Science, Bristol, BS8 1TU, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4049-993X
Suzanne L K StewartUniversity of Chester, School of Psychology, Chester, CH1 4BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2152-0091
Andrew J StewartUniversity of Manchester, Department of Computer Science, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9795-4104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Openness and transparency in the research process are a prerequisite to the production of high quality research outputs. Efforts to maximise these features have substantially accelerated in recent years, placing open and transparent research practices at the forefront of funding and related priorities, and encouraging investment in resources and infrastructure to enable such practices. Despite these efforts, there has been no systematic documentation of current practices, infrastructure, or training and resources that support open and transparent research in the UK. To address this gap, we developed and conducted the Open and Transparent Research Practices survey, a large-scale audit study completed by research-active staff in UK research institutions to better understand existing practices, needs, support, and barriers faced when implementing open and transparent research. The data presented here capture responses from over 2,500 research-active staff based at 15 institutions affiliated with the UK Reproducibility Network. The data provide a snapshot of open research practices that can be used to identify barriers, training needs, and areas that require greater investments.

Identifiers

PMID39179613
PMCPMC11343877

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.