A grassroots approach to peer support by the Danish Reproducibility Network.

Marta Topor, Philippe Bonnet, Veronika Cheplygina, Vibeke Høyrup Dam, Lorna Wildgaard

Abstract readLetter

In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 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

5 authors.

Marta ToporDepartment of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. marta.topor@liu.se.

Philippe BonnetDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Veronika CheplyginaDepartment of Computer Science, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Vibeke Høyrup DamNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Lorna WildgaardRoyal Library, Copenhagen University Library, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Carlsbergfondet CF23-0234

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Danish Reproducibility Network (DKRN) is a grassroots initiative for establishing a peer-supportive reproducibility-focused academic network in Denmark. We modelled our approach on already existing national Reproducibility Networks. We consulted with researchers and research support professionals to identify the needs of the research community. Three themes emerged around policy implementation, training and the appropriate application of reproducible practices. The network aims to address these three themes in a strategic plan, which harnesses the benefits of grassroots initiatives. The mission of the DKRN is therefore to facilitate communication, peer-support, and the exchange of ideas through a network of topic and geographical nodes. The network is open to researchers and research support professionals from all career stages and disciplines. It aligns with broader international initiatives, and national institutions, positioning itself as a contributor to the Danish research ecosystem.

Indexed as

Peer GroupDenmarkHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch PersonnelCommunity buildingGrassroots initiativesOpen researchPeer supportReproducibility networkReproducible research

Identifiers

PMID39256756

DOI10.1087/20150211

PMCPMC11389419

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.