ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Code sharing in ecology and evolution increases citation rates but remains uncommon.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical Artifacts Improve Reproducibility of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction Models on CASF-2016.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Improving reproducibility of data analysis and code in medical research: 5 recommendations to get started.BMJ open · 2025Review
- From policy to practice: progress towards data- and code-sharing in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Ten quick tips to build a Model Life Cycle.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Code sharing in ecology and evolution increases citation rates but remains uncommon.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- The five pillars of computational reproducibility: bioinformatics and beyond.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biologists increasingly rely on computer code to collect and analyze their data, reinforcing the importance of published code for transparency, reproducibility, training, and a basis for further work. Here, we conduct a literature review estimating temporal trends in code sharing in ecology and evolution publications since 2010, and test for an influence of code sharing on citation rate. We find that code is rarely published (only 6% of papers), with little improvement over time. We also found there may be incentives to publish code: Publications that share code have tended to be low-impact initially, but accumulate citations faster, compensating for this deficit. Studies that additionally meet other Open Science criteria, open-access publication, or data sharing, have still higher citation rates, with publications meeting all three criteria (code sharing, data sharing, and open access publication) tending to have the most citations and highest rate of citation accumulation.
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.