Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42240776›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

Deliberative Lab Communication and the Practice of Ethical Science.

Dena K Plemmons, Kevin M Esterling, C K Gunsalus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 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.

Dena K PlemmonsThe Graduate Division, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA. dena.plemmons@ucr.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1585-7723
Kevin M EsterlingDepartment of Political Science and School of Public Policy, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5529-6422
C K GunsalusNational Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation 2220612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluate an intervention designed to give lab-based research teams an opportunity to intentionally discuss project-related data management practices within their labs, examining how such communication might inform perceptions of the relationship between formal data management plans and lab members' day-to-day data management practices. In an earlier study, we developed a lab-based intervention that encouraged a deliberative approach to discussions among lab members regarding the practices of data management and authorship, and an exploration of the ethical dimensions of those practices. This present study builds on this prior work, both as partial replication and extension. Here we show the significant effects of the intervention across several dimensions, but importantly and specific to this project, this deliberative communication approach enhances the likelihood that lab members share an understanding of and a commitment to its data management practices, in part because they have been actively involved in shaping those practices. Fostering shared understanding and commitment is crucial for maintaining rigor and responsibility across all aspects of a lab's work, and is essential for cultivating legitimate, defensible, and ethical approaches to producing scientific knowledge.

Indexed as

CommunicationEthics, ResearchInformation ManagementLaboratoriesResearch PersonnelScienceAcademiaAuthorshipHumansSocial ResponsibilityDeliberative communicationLab cultureResponsible conduct of research

Identifiers

PMID42240776
PMCPMC13473291

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.