ReviewBehavior research methods2025
A sharing practices review of the visual search and eye movements literature reveals recommendations for our field and others.
Review in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Low prevalence targets are primarily missed due to mind wandering.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sharing of research outputs is an important endeavor, one that is increasingly required by funders and publishers alike. Here, we catalogued and examined data sharing practices, using our own field of visual search and eye movement behavior as an example. To find outputs from scientific research, we conducted two searches: a Literature Search and a repository search. Overall, we found that researchers in our field generally shared outputs that enabled others to analytically reproduce published results. It was rare for researchers to share outputs that enabled direct replications of their work, and it was also rare for researchers to share raw data that would enable secondary data analyses. Comparing the results of our two searches of the literature, we found that a lack of metadata substantially reduced the rates at which outputs could be found and used. Based on our findings, we present a set of recommendations summarized in our 'Find It - Access It - Reuse It' scorecard. The scorecard is intended to assist researchers in sharing outputs in a manner that will enable others to better find, access, and understand them - and this includes researchers in other fields beyond our own.
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.