Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39787144›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A novel framework for increasing research transparency: Exploring the connection between diversity and innovation.

Timothy R Wojan, Dayton M Lambert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Timothy R WojanOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Research Ambassadors Program, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, U.S. National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9863-1457
Dayton M LambertDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A split sample/dual method research protocol is demonstrated to increase transparency while reducing the probability of false discovery. We apply the protocol to examine whether diversity in ownership teams increases or decreases the likelihood of a firm reporting a novel innovation using data from the 2018 United States Census Bureau's Annual Business Survey. Transparency is increased in three ways: 1) all specification testing and identifying potentially productive models is done in an exploratory subsample that 2) preserves the validity of hypothesis test statistics from de novo estimation in the holdout confirmatory sample with 3) all findings publicly documented in an earlier registered report and in this journal publication. Bayesian estimation procedures that leverage information from the exploratory stage included in the confirmatory stage estimation replace traditional frequentist null hypothesis significance testing. In addition to increasing statistical power by using information from the full sample, Bayesian methods directly estimate a probability distribution for the magnitude of an effect, allowing much richer inference. Estimated magnitudes of diversity along academic discipline, race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status dimensions are positively associated with innovation. A maximally diverse ownership team on these dimensions would be roughly six times more likely to report new-to-market innovation than a homophilic team.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremCultural DiversityHumansOwnershipResearchResearch DesignUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39787144
PMCPMC11717280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.