Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42314644›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2026

Generosity as a Scientific Method: Building Knowledge and Community in a Competitive World.

Bruno B Andrade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 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

1 author.

Bruno B AndradeDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Monument Street, Room 441, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States, +1 410 622 6797.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6833-3811

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Generosity can function as a scientific method-a disciplined stance that aligns curiosity with openness, credit-sharing, and stewardship of data, specimens, and ideas. Rather than a soft add-on, generosity structures how questions are framed, teams are built, and results are disseminated, thereby improving rigor, reproducibility, and impact. This viewpoint article advances a conceptual and operational framework for "generosity in science," aimed at researchers, institutions, and funders seeking alternatives to competition-driven models of knowledge production. I examine generosity as practice at the levels of people, collectives, and institutions and argue that persistent global challenges in health demand pro-collaborative architectures. Seen this way, generosity is not mere altruism; it is part of the epistemic engine that turns uncertainty into shared knowledge while distributing opportunity and recognition more fairly. I define core principles of generous research and organize them across three domains: research design, governance, and evaluation. The paper draws on illustrative examples and relevant literature to situate generosity within ongoing debates on open science, team science, and research assessment reform. I outline practical principles for embedding generosity into research design, governance, and evaluation and discuss how these principles can counter vanity metrics and short-term incentives. I conclude that embedding generosity in the infrastructure of science enables better questions, faster learning, and greater public value.

Indexed as

generosityleadershipmentorshipopen scienceteam science

Identifiers

PMID42314644
PMCPMC13278732

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.