The pursuitworthiness of team science collaborations in translational neuroscience.

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in European journal for philosophy of science, 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

2 authors.

Jacqueline A SullivanDepartment of Philosophy, Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western Institute for Neuroscience London, University of Western Ontario, London, ON Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3042-4632

Saher PanjwaniDepartment of Philosophy, Rotman Institute of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroscientists investigating the neural bases of cognition in health and disease increasingly face choices about how to structure their programs of research. On the one hand, they can pursue independent investigator-led disciplinary specific research projects and seek funding through traditional granting mechanisms. On the other, they can experiment with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborations of varying scale and scope, applying for funding for multi-year milestone driven projects. Although team-based initiatives have become a prominent feature of the neuroscientific research landscape in recent years, relatively little is known about how scientists evaluate whether participation in them is worth pursuing. In this paper, we present findings from semi-structured interviews with 10 neuroscientists participating in the

Indexed as

Exploration-exploitation trade-offInterdisciplinary collaborationPursuitworthinessTeam scienceTranslational neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID42787299

DOI10.1007/s13194-026-00782-5

PMCPMC13601157

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.