ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2025
A plea for academic truth.
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 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.
- My plea for academic decency remains unchanged: a response to Lior Pachter.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In her book Why trust Science?, Naomi Oreskes examines the question of what it means to say that "science corrects itself", highlighting the importance of the social process of science and specifically the importance of scientists challenging each other in the pursuit of truth. In a recent preprint, a colleague and I did exactly that, reviewing a corpus of work by Australian neuroethologist Mandyam Srinivasan and identifying numerous problems across ten of his papers, including several instances of identical data being reported for different experiments. In a recent editorial, Eric Warrant dismisses our critiques of Srinivasan's work as "sloppiness all of us are capable of", and instead focuses on attacking us, sometimes conflating criticisms of others of Srinivasan's work with ours. Here I review his claims and argue for the importance of truth in the advancement of science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879732What 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.