Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42240244›Full record

ReviewJournal of Parkinson's disease2026

Aligning incentives for open science in biomedical research: Navigating funder and institutional perspectives.

Dylan Roskams-Edris, Sam Riedijk, Natalie Terzikhan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 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.

Dylan Roskams-EdrisConscience Medicines Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4526-2296
Sam RiedijkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3400-4969
Natalie TerzikhanDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As science evolves, so must the systems that support it and evaluate it. Inspired by UNESCO's open science definition, this paper explores how funders and institutions can move beyond the traditional metrics to define scientific impact and to create a more inclusive, transparent and collaborative research ecosystem. We demonstrate through practical examples how the academic landscape is moving towards more openness as the new standard. We conclude with a discussion of challenges in implementing open science practices and recommendations for funders and institutions that will help to create a more unified framework of recognition and reward of scientific work.

Indexed as

fundersincentivesopen dialogueopen engagementopen infrastructureopen knowledgeopen scienceresearch evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42240244
PMCPMC13438880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.