Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anesthesiology research.

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2025

• Venue

  British Journal of Anaesthesia

• Publication date

  2025-06-30

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1016/j.bja.2025.05.007PMID 40592699
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• The Anesthesia & Analgesia Strategy for the “People and Health Advocacy” Section: Economic, Academic, and Healthcare Dividends of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

  2025cited by this paper
• The value of equity, diversity, and inclusion principles and sex/gender considerations in pain research.

  2025cited by this paper
• Enhancing the trustworthiness of pain research: A Call to Action.

  2024cited by this paper
• What meta‐research has taught us about research and changes to research practices

  2024cited by this paper
• Promoting Openness and Transparency to Advance Pain Science: New Initiatives at The Journal of Pain.

  2024cited by this paper
• Reducing the spread of retracted pain research.

  2024cited by this paper
• The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes

  2023cited by this paper
• Trials we cannot trust: investigating their impact on systematic reviews and clinical guidelines in spinal pain.

  2023cited by this paper
• Characteristics of retracted publications related to pain research: a systematic review.

  2023cited by this paper
• Promoting Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity in Pain Science.

  2022cited by this paper
• Systematic review of retracted articles in critical care medicine.

  2022cited by this paper
• Flawed, futile, and fabricated-features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review.

  2022cited by this paper
• Further retractions of articles by Joachim Boldt.

  2020cited by this paper
• Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation

  2020cited by this paper
• “statcheck”: Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta‐analyses

  2020cited by this paper
• False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia

  2020cited by this paper
• Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis

  2019cited by this paper
• Analysis of Practices to Promote Reproducibility and Transparency in Anaesthesiology Research: Are Important Aspects “Hidden Behind the Drapes?”

  2019cited by this paper
• Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017

  2018cited by this paper
• Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

  2018cited by this paper
• Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review.

  2018cited by this paper
• Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials

  2015cited by this paper
• Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

  2015cited by this paper
• Promoting an open research culture

  2015cited by this paper
• On statistical methods to test if sampling in trials is genuinely random

  2012cited by this paper
• Editorʼs Note: Notices of Retraction

  2011cited by this paper
• Editor's note: notices of retraction.

  2011cited by this paper
• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

  2005cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.