Author:
Sumner Josh Q.,Vitale Cynthia Hudson,McIntosh Leslie D.
Abstract
A wide array of existing metrics quantifies a scientific paper's prominence or the author's prestige. Many who use these metrics make assumptions that higher citation counts or more public attention must indicate more reliable, better quality science. While current metrics offer valuable insight into scientific publications, they are an inadequate proxy for measuring the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of published research. Three essential elements to establishing trust in a work include: trust in the paper, trust in the author, and trust in the data. To address these elements in a systematic and automated way, we propose the ripetaScore as a direct measurement of a paper's research practices, professionalism, and reproducibility. Using a sample of our current corpus of academic papers, we demonstrate the ripetaScore's efficacy in determining the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of an academic work. In this paper, we aim to provide a metric to evaluate scientific reporting quality in terms of transparency and trustworthiness of the research, professionalism, and reproducibility.
Reference20 articles.
1. Disclose all data in publications;Baggerly;Nature,2010
2. Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin: a potential interest in reducing in-hospital morbidity due to COVID-19 pneumonia (HI-ZY-COVID)?;Davido;medRxiv Preprint,2020
3. Altmetric [Software]
4. Dimensions [Software]
5. HeimstadtM..
Between Fast Science and Fake News: Preprint Servers Are Political2020
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献