Danny Valdez1, Colby J Vorland1, Andrew W Brown1, Evan Mayo-Wilson1, Justin Otten1, Richard Ball2, Sean Grant3, Rachel Levy4, Dubravka Svetina Valdivia5, David B Allison1. 1. Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, IN, 47403, USA. 2. Project TIER, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, 19041, USA. 3. Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, IN, 46223, USA. 4. Rachel Levy, Mathematical Association of America, 1529 18th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. 5. Indiana University School of Education, Bloomington, IN, 47401, USA.
Abstract
Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does 'spin' in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research). Copyright:
Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results:Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does 'spin' in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion:Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research). Copyright:
Authors: Andrew W Brown; Peng Li; Michelle M Bohan Brown; Kathryn A Kaiser; Scott W Keith; J Michael Oakes; David B Allison Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Elin B Begley; Jamie M Ware; Sarah A Hexem; Karina Rapposelli; Kelly Thompson; Matthew S Penn; Gustavo A Aquino Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Eleanor A Ochodo; Margriet C de Haan; Johannes B Reitsma; Lotty Hooft; Patrick M Bossuyt; Mariska M G Leeflang Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Krista Casazza; Kevin R Fontaine; Arne Astrup; Leann L Birch; Andrew W Brown; Michelle M Bohan Brown; Nefertiti Durant; Gareth Dutton; E Michael Foster; Steven B Heymsfield; Kerry McIver; Tapan Mehta; Nir Menachemi; P K Newby; Russell Pate; Barbara J Rolls; Bisakha Sen; Daniel L Smith; Diana M Thomas; David B Allison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245