ArticleScientific data2024
UK Reproducibility Network open and transparent research practices survey dataset.
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.
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.
- Reproducibility, transparency, and open science: a cultural evolution is needed to move from ideals we celebrate to implementation.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.