ArticleBiophysical reviews2025
Practical measures for achieving greater alignment between scientific practice and meaningful research output.
Article in Biophysical reviews, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rise of generative artificial intelligence, previous barriers to producing written content in the form of papers and grants are decreasing, resulting in a rapid rise in the level of submitted material. This opinion piece first describes a number of already existing structural problems within current scientific research practice that relate to publication output, managerial science styles, and the operation of national granting systems that are especially susceptible to further exploitation with the use of an artificial intelligence-based writing assistant. It then proceeds to offer a number of recommendations that may help to fix these problems, thereby creating better working environments and higher quality research output. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12551-025-01324-8.
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.