Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41042204›Full record

ArticleAccountability in research2026

Polarization in research or mere dissent - a need for better demarcation.

Bor Luen Tang

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Accountability in research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Lorlatinib and neurocognitive adverse events: characterization, risk factors, and the potentially mitigative role of social support.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bor Luen TangDepartment of Biochemistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-1925-636X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dr Bjørn Hofmann's views on polarization in research are insightful. However, many if not most types of differences in scientific opinions might thus be included as polarization. It could be argued that true polarization in scientific research should include only individuals and groups approximating the Lakatosian "research program" type, whereby polarized research parties could tangibly defend their own core theses, which have yet to be falsified, with heuristic pursuits. Otherwise, such differences are better classified as dissents, although the latter, beyond being merely annoying, could also be disruptive for research.

Indexed as

Dissent and DisputesHumansdissentLakatosPolarization in researchresearch program

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.