Literature DB >> 32721132

Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Eric M Prager1, Karen E Chambers1, Joshua L Plotkin2, David L McArthur3, Anita E Bandrowski4, Nidhi Bansal1, Maryann E Martone4, Hadley C Bergstrom5, Anton Bespalov6,7, Chris Graf8.   

Abstract

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories. SIGNIFICANCE: Failure to replicate research findings often arises from errors in the experimental design and statistical approaches. By providing a full account of the experimental design, procedures, and statistical approaches, researchers can address the reproducibility crisis and improve the sustainability of research outcomes. In this piece, we discuss the key issues leading to irreproducibility and provide general approaches to improving transparency and rigor in reporting, which could assist in making research more reproducible.
© 2018 The Authors Cancer Reports Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Open Science; peer review; policy; publishing; scientific rigor; transparency

Year:  2018        PMID: 32721132      PMCID: PMC7941525          DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1150

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)        ISSN: 2573-8348


  87 in total

1.  Post hoc power analysis: an idea whose time has passed?

Authors:  M Levine; M H Ensom
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.705

2.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards.

Authors:  K Dickersin; Y I Min; C L Meinert
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-01-15       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Sex differences in molecular neuroscience: from fruit flies to humans.

Authors:  Elena Jazin; Larry Cahill
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuroscience: what do we gain?

Authors:  Margaret M McCarthy; Catherine S Woolley; Arthur P Arnold
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 34.870

5.  Transparent reporting for reproducible science.

Authors:  Tracey L Weissgerber; Vesna D Garovic; Stacey J Winham; Natasa M Milic; Eric M Prager
Journal:  J Neurosci Res       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 4.164

6.  Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; Lawrence A Tabak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research.

Authors:  Kp Suresh
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2011-01

8.  Beyond bar and line graphs: time for a new data presentation paradigm.

Authors:  Tracey L Weissgerber; Natasa M Milic; Stacey J Winham; Vesna D Garovic
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature.

Authors:  David Moher; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models.

Authors:  Oscar Flórez-Vargas; Andy Brass; George Karystianis; Michael Bramhall; Robert Stevens; Sheena Cruickshank; Goran Nenadic
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 8.140

View more
  1 in total

1.  Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Authors:  Eric M Prager; Karen E Chambers; Joshua L Plotkin; David L McArthur; Anita E Bandrowski; Nidhi Bansal; Maryann E Martone; Hadley C Bergstrom; Anton Bespalov; Chris Graf
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2018-12-02
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.