Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41149768›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025

Scientific Impact and Its Role in Scientific Reasoning.

Robert J Sternberg, Alexandra Moravek, Tamara M Vaz, Riley Mack Schneider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Robert J SternbergDepartment of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-5169
Alexandra MoravekDepartment of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Tamara M VazGrupo PBE Educação, Unijipa University, Rio de Janeiro 76900-079, Brazil.
Riley Mack SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We tested 75 participants in a selective university near the East Coast of the United States for their skills in scientific reasoning. We used scientific reasoning assessments for Generating Hypotheses, Generating Experiments, and Drawing Conclusions. To measure scientific reasoning skills, we also used a task involving analyzing scientific impact based on titles of published studies (which were either highly cited or scarcely cited), and another task involving creating what participants believed might be high-impact scientific studies in three subject matter areas. Participants further completed two fluid intelligence tests: Number Series and Letter Sets. They also filled in demographic information, including self-reported SAT/ACT scores and college GPA. (We cannot obtain actual grades at our university because of student-confidentiality issues.) We found that the scientific reasoning tests for Generating Hypotheses, Generating Experiments, and Drawing Conclusions clustered into a single factor, and the task for creating high-impact studies was also factored with these scientific reasoning tests. The two fluid ability tests-Number Series and Letter Sets-clustered into a distinct single factor. The task of analyzing impact seemed to be in between the other tasks, showing characteristics of not only the scientific reasoning tasks but also of the fluid intelligence tasks.

Indexed as

drawing conclusionsfluid intelligencegenerating experimentsgenerating hypothesesscientific impactscientific reasoning

Identifiers

PMID41149768
PMCPMC12565366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.