ArticleJournal of global health2025
Ideometrics: a scientific approach to generating, evaluating, and prioritising ideas.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. 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.
- Editor's view: What makes a scientist successful?Journal of global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This paper introduces and describes a new integrative scientific approach - ideometrics - building on the 'sense of ideas' and 'value of information' concepts. Ideometrics is the emerging field of generating, evaluating, and prioritising ideas. Methods: Focused on the generation, evaluation and prioritisation of ideas, we identified and then mapped the landscape of methodological approaches that have been used over time, disciplines, and epistemic paradigms across many areas of human enquiry. Although these often appeared to arise independently, isolated by geographical and disciplinary boundaries, they share remarkable conceptual and structural similarities, from creative ideation, balancing of subjective and objective criteria, to iterative refinement. Finally, we sought to integrate these traditions through an empirical scientific framework. Results: We identified over 70 different methodological approaches. We then proposed several steps to establish ideometrics as a rigorous and practically useful field of science, rather than merely an integrative framework. Ideometrics is falsifiable: it supports testable predictions about future performance of competing ideas, while its methods are increasingly evolving into rigorous, structured, standardised and mathematically characterised tools. It enables accumulation of evidence and progressive refinement of theory, application of statistical inference, and introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). Conclusions: Future progress will make ideometrics increasingly quantitative, digital, testable and replicable. We therefore foresee assessments of scientific footprints of each of the >70 methodological approaches, developing formal reporting guidelines to standardise ideometrics studies and allow meta-analyses, and conducting empirical comparisons between methods used to address the same challenges. Ideometrics represents an attempt to systematically unify the scientific approaches to generating, evaluating, and prioritising ideas. Its practical application should address scarcity by assisting individuals, institutions, and societies to focus their limited time, energy, capacity and resources on pursuing the ideas that are most likely to achieve their stated aims, based on an objective and scientific approach, rather than subjective and intuitive priority setting.
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.