Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39661656›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2024

Public engagement with research reproducibility.

Constant Vinatier, Magdalena Kozula, Veerle Van den Eynden, Laura Caquelin, Hynek Roubik, Inge Stegeman, Florian Naudet

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Constant VinatierUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6899-1838
Magdalena KozulaFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Methodology of Educational Sciences Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Veerle Van den EyndenRDM Competence Centre, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Laura CaquelinUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France.
Hynek RoubikDepartment of Sustainable Technologies, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
Inge StegemanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Florian NaudetUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France.

Funding

European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public engagement with reproducibility is crucial for fostering trust in science. This Community Page outlines, through the example of baking Christmas tree meringues, how scientists can effectively engage and educate the public about the importance of reproducibility in research.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationTrustHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch

Identifiers

PMID39661656
PMCPMC11654961

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.