Cited by 9Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessAcademic Writing and Publishing

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

The ARRIVE guidelines survey

Open access
Viki Hurst, Nathalie Percie du Sert·2018·OSF Registries

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.17605/osf.io/g8t5q

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Researchers are often unfamiliar with the much larger systemic bias in the publication of research and in the reliability of certain findings and even of entire fields.

    “however, researchers are often unfamiliar with the much larger systemic bias in the publication of research and in the reliability of certain findings and even of entire fields [33, 38–40].”

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hurst, V., & du Sert, N. P.
Venue
OSF Registries
Publisher
OSF Registries
Published
2018
OpenAlex
W6906560876
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2020: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Science Framework
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
ARRIVE guidelines, reporting guidelines, animal studies, animal welfare, reporting quality, guideline adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review