SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Amending the literature through version control
12 references·1 citing·51 second hop
Amending the literature through version control (2023)Amending the literature through version c…A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges (2022)A Synthesis of the Formats fo…Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project (2021)Putting the Self in Self-Corr…The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019 (2019)The limitations of retraction…Open collaborative writing with Manubot (2019)Open collaborative writing wi…Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record (2019)Ending the retraction stigma:…Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections? (2017)Amending published articles: …The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications (2016)The Prevalence of Inappropria…Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors (2016)Reproducibility: A tragedy of…When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record (2015)When things go wrong: correct…Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research (2013)Ten Simple Rules for Reproduc…Characterization of Published Errors in High-Impact Oncology Journals (2011)Characterization of Published…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Implementing Code Review in the Scientific Workflow: Insights from Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (2023)Implementing Code Review in t…Galaxy: A platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis (2005)Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences (2010)Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? (2011)Reproducibility in Science (2014)Good enough practices in scientific computing (2017)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? (2018)Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature (2018)Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability (2018)The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science (2013)Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)Curriculum vitae: challenges and potential solutions (2020)A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction (2021)Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews (2022)Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections (2018)Rethinking retractions (2018)An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature (2019)Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices (2023)Open Access (2012)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Reproducible, portable, and efficient ancient genome reconstruction with nf-core/eager (2021)Streamlining data-intensive biology with workflow systems (2021)A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring (2024)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies (2017)Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data (2020)Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors (2021)Exploring the role of rejection in scholarly knowledge production: Insights from granular interaction thinking and information theory (2024)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)At what sample size do correlations stabilize? (2013)Promoting an open research culture (2015)Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations (2021)Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis (2021)Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models (2023)The natural selection of bad science (2016)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses (2023)The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review (2023)The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review (2024)Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows (2017)COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time (2019)AiiDA 1.0, a scalable computational infrastructure for automated reproducible workflows and data provenance (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,571 cited
  • 2013Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research935 cited
  • 2016The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications287 cited
  • 2016Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors261 cited
  • 2019The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019126 cited
  • 2021Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project86 cited
  • 2019Open collaborative writing with Manubot71 cited
  • 2019Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record52 cited
  • 2022A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges51 cited
  • 2017Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections?46 cited
  • 2015When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record35 cited
  • 2011Characterization of Published Errors in High-Impact Oncology Journals31 cited

Cited by

  • 2023Implementing Code Review in the Scientific Workflow: Insights from Ecology and Evolutionary Biology5 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work