SynthesisFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025
Axiology and dynamics of contemporary research groups: a systematic review and hermeneutic meta-analysis of knowledge, values, and social elements.
Synthesis in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Circulating Amyloid and Misfolded Biomarkers in Early Myocardial Injury: A Systematic Review and Epistemic Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Transformation of Pediatric Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review and Epistemic Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic, Therapeutic, and Self-Management Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
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
Introduction: This research explores the practices of current research groups, where multidisciplinary groups stand out for their relevance in developing science. The objective is to comprehensively explore the practices and values of research groups through a three phase study. Methods: In the first phase a systematic review was performed, in the second phase, a hermeneutic analysis focused on values, knowledge and the social elements to describe and delve into the development of scientific practices. The third phase, a discussion of these practices and interactions was proposed. Results: The most relevant findings are the specific attitudes valued in social interactions, such as the relationship between cooperation and solidarity, economic values like the link between benefit and profitability, and research values like the connection between inclusion and coherence. Discussion: These relationships help define the value networks that shape interactions, practices and relationships within scientific groups. This describes the dynamic of contemporary science to answer today's challenges.
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.