ArticleEthics & human research
Revisiting the Obligation to Share Aggregate Results with Research Participants in the Era of Open Science.
Article in Ethics & human research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reciprocity in research: Participant views on return of results in the WATCH-PD qualitative study.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- Deciding whether to donate fetal tissue for research.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Returning aggregate research results to participants: a scoping review of current practices, preferences and challenges.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Transparency and ongoing communication with participants in brain organoid research: Consensus of an interdisciplinary working group.Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Revisiting the Obligation to Share Aggregate Results with Research Participants in the Era of Open Science.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open science initiatives, intended to democratize access to research products, have made steady progress in shifting the global science culture toward practices like preregistration and data sharing. However, current open science efforts have not yet addressed the special obligation to ensure that research results are made accessible to the portion of the general population who contribute most directly to scientific advances: research participants. In this article, we explore the ethical obligation to communicate aggregate results to research participants and consider elements of open science infrastructure that could be amended for this purpose. We consider open questions for implementation related to the methods, timing, potential harms, oversight, and incentives for communicating aggregate results and pose solutions that could, following the example of open science initiatives, succeed in nudging investigators to reciprocate the efforts of research participants by sharing the scientific findings they helped to advance.
Indexed as
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.