Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Improving Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interest for Research on Psychosocial Interventions

JAMA Psychiatry(2018)10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0382Source: DataRank Database

Improving Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interest for Research on Psychosocial Interventions is a research paper published in JAMA Psychiatry (2018). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.4. It has been cited 33 times, with 26 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 43/100.

N/A

1.4DataRank · unranked

1.4

33 citations · base score 3.5

Cite:

datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Psychiatry HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Psychiatry journal

›Data sources & pipeline

Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring

Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)

Findable (1/2)

Has DOI

Accessible (0/2)

Interoperable (0/2)

Reusable (0/3)

FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

43FAIR score

F Findable

100

A Accessible

I Interoperable

R Reusable

Top 79% by FAIRdeterministic⚠ abstract only

Estimated from the abstract only. The agent couldn't read this paper's full text, so body-dependent criteria (data-availability statement, formats, license) are inferred. For a confident score, upload the PDF or supply full text →

Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →

DataRank Breakdown

Base Score 38%Citation Network 62%

Base Score Contribution

0.529

From this paper's citation signal

Citation Network Contribution

0.877

From 19 citing papers with measurable signal

Learn more about DataRank methodology →

Top 5 citers driving the network score

Ranked by citation count — the same ordering the engine uses when summing log1p(C_q) over citers.

Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature
PLOS Biology2016333 citationsDataRank 0.872
Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014–2017)
Perspectives on Psychological Science2021107 citationsDataRank 0.702
Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology201687 citationsDataRank 0.672
Disclosures in Nutrition Research
JAMA201857 citationsDataRank 3.8
Disclosures Can Always Be Improved—Reply
JAMA Psychiatry20180 citationsDataRank 0

Why this DataRank?

DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 38% comes from its base citations and 62% from the citation network (19 citing papers contributed measurable signal).

Base score B(p): log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
Network N(p): Σ over citers of log1p(C_q) ÷ max(outdegree_q, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
Damping factor d = 0.85: DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
Self-citations excluded: Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

Read the full methodology →

Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.

Node colors:CenterData PaperData + Open AccessNon-dataSelected & links| Node size = percentile rank