Cargando…

On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature

Scientific reproducibility has been at the forefront of many news stories and there exist numerous initiatives to help address this problem. We posit that a contributor is simply a lack of specificity that is required to enable adequate research reproducibility. In particular, the inability to uniqu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vasilevsky, Nicole A., Brush, Matthew H., Paddock, Holly, Ponting, Laura, Tripathy, Shreejoy J., LaRocca, Gregory M., Haendel, Melissa A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3771067/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032093
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.148
_version_ 1782284167432634368
author Vasilevsky, Nicole A.
Brush, Matthew H.
Paddock, Holly
Ponting, Laura
Tripathy, Shreejoy J.
LaRocca, Gregory M.
Haendel, Melissa A.
author_facet Vasilevsky, Nicole A.
Brush, Matthew H.
Paddock, Holly
Ponting, Laura
Tripathy, Shreejoy J.
LaRocca, Gregory M.
Haendel, Melissa A.
author_sort Vasilevsky, Nicole A.
collection PubMed
description Scientific reproducibility has been at the forefront of many news stories and there exist numerous initiatives to help address this problem. We posit that a contributor is simply a lack of specificity that is required to enable adequate research reproducibility. In particular, the inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even where the science is otherwise sound. In order to better understand the magnitude of this problem, we designed an experiment to ascertain the “identifiability” of research resources in the biomedical literature. We evaluated recent journal articles in the fields of Neuroscience, Developmental Biology, Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology and General Biology, selected randomly based on a diversity of impact factors for the journals, publishers, and experimental method reporting guidelines. We attempted to uniquely identify model organisms (mouse, rat, zebrafish, worm, fly and yeast), antibodies, knockdown reagents (morpholinos or RNAi), constructs, and cell lines. Specific criteria were developed to determine if a resource was uniquely identifiable, and included examining relevant repositories (such as model organism databases, and the Antibody Registry), as well as vendor sites. The results of this experiment show that 54% of resources are not uniquely identifiable in publications, regardless of domain, journal impact factor, or reporting requirements. For example, in many cases the organism strain in which the experiment was performed or antibody that was used could not be identified. Our results show that identifiability is a serious problem for reproducibility. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to authors, reviewers, journal editors, vendors, and publishers. Scientific efficiency and reproducibility depend upon a research-wide improvement of this substantial problem in science today.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3771067
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37710672013-09-12 On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature Vasilevsky, Nicole A. Brush, Matthew H. Paddock, Holly Ponting, Laura Tripathy, Shreejoy J. LaRocca, Gregory M. Haendel, Melissa A. PeerJ Cell Biology Scientific reproducibility has been at the forefront of many news stories and there exist numerous initiatives to help address this problem. We posit that a contributor is simply a lack of specificity that is required to enable adequate research reproducibility. In particular, the inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even where the science is otherwise sound. In order to better understand the magnitude of this problem, we designed an experiment to ascertain the “identifiability” of research resources in the biomedical literature. We evaluated recent journal articles in the fields of Neuroscience, Developmental Biology, Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology and General Biology, selected randomly based on a diversity of impact factors for the journals, publishers, and experimental method reporting guidelines. We attempted to uniquely identify model organisms (mouse, rat, zebrafish, worm, fly and yeast), antibodies, knockdown reagents (morpholinos or RNAi), constructs, and cell lines. Specific criteria were developed to determine if a resource was uniquely identifiable, and included examining relevant repositories (such as model organism databases, and the Antibody Registry), as well as vendor sites. The results of this experiment show that 54% of resources are not uniquely identifiable in publications, regardless of domain, journal impact factor, or reporting requirements. For example, in many cases the organism strain in which the experiment was performed or antibody that was used could not be identified. Our results show that identifiability is a serious problem for reproducibility. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to authors, reviewers, journal editors, vendors, and publishers. Scientific efficiency and reproducibility depend upon a research-wide improvement of this substantial problem in science today. PeerJ Inc. 2013-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3771067/ /pubmed/24032093 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.148 Text en © 2013 Vasilevsky et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Cell Biology
Vasilevsky, Nicole A.
Brush, Matthew H.
Paddock, Holly
Ponting, Laura
Tripathy, Shreejoy J.
LaRocca, Gregory M.
Haendel, Melissa A.
On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
title On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
title_full On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
title_fullStr On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
title_full_unstemmed On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
title_short On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
title_sort on the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature
topic Cell Biology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3771067/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032093
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.148
work_keys_str_mv AT vasilevskynicolea onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature
AT brushmatthewh onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature
AT paddockholly onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature
AT pontinglaura onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature
AT tripathyshreejoyj onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature
AT laroccagregorym onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature
AT haendelmelissaa onthereproducibilityofscienceuniqueidentificationofresearchresourcesinthebiomedicalliterature