Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40242539›Full record

ArticleFundamental research2025

Open science readiness index: Theory and simulations.

Wei Yang, Ruofei Chang, Xiaoling Kang, Chunjie Zhang, Jinxia Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fundamental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Wei YangCenter for X-Mechanics, Department of Applied Mechanics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China.
Ruofei ChangCenter for X-Mechanics, Department of Applied Mechanics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China.
Xiaoling KangElsevier, Beijing 100738, China.
Chunjie ZhangJournal Publishing Center, Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou 310028, China.
Jinxia HuangOpen Science Research Center, National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An open science readiness index (abbreviated as OSRI) is proposed to quantify the progression of open science. The index is accumulated by three related but separately measured dimensions: the readiness for open access, open data and open policy, respectively. Each composition is characterized by proxies attainable from publicized data. The readiness for open access is measured by the volume and intensity of scholarly output under open access mode, vectorized by the weighted sum of volume and the percentage under international collaboration. The readiness for open data is characterized by the sharing and accessing scopes of data, weighted by the academics, information accessibility, and reliability of those data. The readiness for open policy is counted by the confidence of open policy pertinent for the hierarchical levels of needs. The evolution of OSRI is exemplified by nine selected countries/regions under the current framework. The dynamics of OSRI is captured by an ascending curve from zero to one, approximately delineated by a logistic presentation with two parameters: the launching year and the transition speed of open science.

Indexed as

AccessibilityData sharingDynamicsInclusivenessOpen scienceReadiness index

Identifiers

PMID40242539
PMCPMC11997554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.