ArticleScientific data2025
Rethinking the production and publication of machine-readable expressions of research findings.
Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Rethinking the production and publication of machine-readable expressions of research findings.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific literature is the primary expression of scientific knowledge and an important source of research data. However, scientific knowledge expressed in narrative text documents is not inherently machine readable. To facilitate knowledge reuse, knowledge must be extracted from articles and organized into databases post-publication. The high time costs and inaccuracies associated with completing these activities manually has driven the development of techniques that automate knowledge extraction. Tackling the problem with a different mindset, we propose a pre-publication approach, known as reborn, that ensures scientific knowledge is born readable, i.e. produced in a machine-readable format with formal data syntax during knowledge production. We implement the approach using the Open Research Knowledge Graph infrastructure for FAIR scientific knowledge organization. With a focus on statistical research findings, we test the approach with three use cases in soil science, computer science, and agroecology. Our results suggest that the proposed approach is superior compared to classical manual and semi-automated post-publication extraction techniques in terms of knowledge accuracy, richness, and reproducibility as well as technological simplicity.
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.