ReviewRoyal Society open science2023
Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes.
Review in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- From Imaging to Impact: A Multi-Disciplinary T32 Program Framework and Initial Insights for Training in Image-Guided Cancer Therapy [Advance Publication].Advances in cancer education and quality improvement · 2025Article
- The effectiveness of behavioural interventions on young, novice drivers' motor vehicle crash risk: A systematic review.Journal of transport & health · 2025Article
- International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of open research in psychology: a systematic mapping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- A manifesto for a globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Harnessing open science practices to teach ecology and evolutionary biology using interactive tutorials.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- A Delphi Study to Strengthen Research-Methods Training in Undergraduate Psychology Programs.Advances in methods and practices in psychological science · 2024Article
- Article
- Social and moral psychology of COVID-19 across 69 countries.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
71 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.