ReviewThe European journal of neuroscience2026
How to Foster Challenging Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Can Philosophy Support Neuroscientists?
Review in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to Foster Challenging Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Can Philosophy Support Neuroscientists?The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
New conceptual and technological developments bring neuroscientists closer to other disciplines and other fields in neuroscience with different traditions. Although some neuroscientists may underrate the potential benefits of successful interdisciplinary collaborations, others may be unaware of the typical difficulties of such collaborations or are not trained in skills that render them fruitful. Here, we argue that interdisciplinary interactions have long been part of neuroscience, although they are often challenging, because neuroscientists may be confronted with concepts, assumptions, and interpretative horizons that differ from their own. This can lead to misunderstandings and little mutual appreciation. Using the historical development of brain imaging techniques, we distinguish between different types of interdisciplinary interactions and illustrate some of their benefits. In addition, we present various challenges for collaborations at the interface between traditional laboratory-type approaches and those of clinical or computational neuroscience or of ecological field approaches. To address these challenges, we invite neuroscientists to consider philosophers as collaboration partners with complementary expertise, which includes special consideration of language use, underlying assumptions and proficiency in conceptual analysis. This expertise can be used by neuroscientists to increase their understanding and address some difficulties in interdisciplinary interactions more effectively. The benefits of these interactions can be expected to outweigh challenges in the dialogue with philosophers. Importantly, neuroscientists can choose between reading philosophical literature, participating in joint events with philosophers, and integrating philosophers into neuroscience projects. This may allow neuroscientists to explore unforeseen possibilities to improve or initiate collaborations with scientists from other fields and disciplines.
Indexed as
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.