Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41652593›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2026

Exploring open science in applied ethology: practice and attitudes among researchers.

Christian Nawroth, Helen Gray, I Anna S Olsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Christian NawrothResearch Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN), Dummerstorf, Germany. nawroth.christian@gmail.com.
Helen GraySchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
I Anna S Olssoni3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn light of the replication crisis, transparency is critical for impactful research. This is particularly relevant for animal-based research fields, like Applied Ethology, where ethical obligations demand both scientific integrity and responsible use of animals. While Open Science practices are well-established in some fields, especially psychology, they remain limited in the field of Applied Ethology, for which there is also a lack of standardised guidelines and training. To assess the prevalence of different Open Science practices in this field, we surveyed attendees of the 2021 virtual International Society for Applied Ethology Congress.

resultsOf 372 invitations, 112 surveys were completed (30.1%). Preprints (25%) and preregistration (9%) were uncommon, with lack of training cited as the main barrier. Of those who had published a preprint/preregistered study protocol, preprints were mainly used for result dissemination (81%) and preregistration for quality control and integrity (56%). 27% reported always sharing their data, 57% shared sometimes, and 15% never shared their data. Sharing data as supplementary material was most common, only a minority used data repositories and only 21% of respondents had heard of the FAIR principles.

Indexed as

AttitudeEthologyInformation DisseminationResearch PersonnelAnimalsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesOpen dataPreprintPreregistrationSurvey

Identifiers

PMID41652593
PMCPMC12947526

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.