ReviewNature communications2026
Knowledge preservation in the era of big science and AI: strategies for sustainable scientific research.
Review in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Science is losing knowledge it cannot afford to lose. Negative results go unpublished, hard-won expertise walks out the door with departing researchers, and preservation efforts remain fragmented. The consequences are wasted resources, duplicated effort, and missed discoveries. In this perspective, we argue that the research community can act now by embracing alternative dissemination channels, improving documentation best practices, and building sustainable digital infrastructure. We envision moderated platforms for sharing null results and practical know-how, community-driven standards, and AI-powered tools that lower barriers to implementation. With coordinated effort, science can become more open, efficient, and resilient for future generations.
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.