ArticlePLoS medicine2025
Open science and transparency are our strongest tools in the fight against fraudulent publishing activities.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fostering cultural change in research through innovative knowledge sharing, evaluation, and community engagement strategies.NPJ science of learning · 2026Review
- Contaminating the evidence: the reproducibility crisis and fraud in infectious disease research.Infection · 2026Article
- Funders' Expectations for Open Science in Cardiovascular Research: A Scoping Review of the Largest Cardiovascular Research Funders.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Requiring code sharing to strengthen transparency and trust in research.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Transparency only from authors? Insights from 'mysterious' retractions in obstetrics and gynecology.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Safeguarding Open Science from exploitative practices.PLoS medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic fraud threatens the integrity of science, with paper and review mills distorting the evidence base in medicine and global health. Data transparency-once seen mainly as a driver of discovery-must now be recognized as a frontline defense against misconduct. Only through open data and coordinated action can we safeguard trust in research and its impact on health.
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.