Cargando…
Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities
The preclinical research process is a cycle of idea generation, experimentation, and reporting of results. The biomedical research community relies on the reproducibility of published discoveries to create new lines of research and to translate research findings into therapeutic applications. Since...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000Research
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5461896/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28620458 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11334.1 |
_version_ | 1783242424482529280 |
---|---|
author | Freedman, Leonard P. Venugopalan, Gautham Wisman, Rosann |
author_facet | Freedman, Leonard P. Venugopalan, Gautham Wisman, Rosann |
author_sort | Freedman, Leonard P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The preclinical research process is a cycle of idea generation, experimentation, and reporting of results. The biomedical research community relies on the reproducibility of published discoveries to create new lines of research and to translate research findings into therapeutic applications. Since 2012, when scientists from Amgen reported that they were able to reproduce only 6 of 53 “landmark” preclinical studies, the biomedical research community began discussing the scale of the reproducibility problem and developing initiatives to address critical challenges. Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) released the “Case for Standards” in 2013, one of the first comprehensive reports to address the rising concern of irreproducible biomedical research. Further attention was drawn to issues that limit scientific self-correction, including reporting and publication bias, underpowered studies, lack of open access to methods and data, and lack of clearly defined standards and guidelines in areas such as reagent validation. To evaluate the progress made towards reproducibility since 2013, GBSI identified and examined initiatives designed to advance quality and reproducibility. Through this process, we identified key roles for funders, journals, researchers and other stakeholders and recommended actions for future progress. This paper describes our findings and conclusions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5461896 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | F1000Research |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54618962017-06-14 Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities Freedman, Leonard P. Venugopalan, Gautham Wisman, Rosann F1000Res Review The preclinical research process is a cycle of idea generation, experimentation, and reporting of results. The biomedical research community relies on the reproducibility of published discoveries to create new lines of research and to translate research findings into therapeutic applications. Since 2012, when scientists from Amgen reported that they were able to reproduce only 6 of 53 “landmark” preclinical studies, the biomedical research community began discussing the scale of the reproducibility problem and developing initiatives to address critical challenges. Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) released the “Case for Standards” in 2013, one of the first comprehensive reports to address the rising concern of irreproducible biomedical research. Further attention was drawn to issues that limit scientific self-correction, including reporting and publication bias, underpowered studies, lack of open access to methods and data, and lack of clearly defined standards and guidelines in areas such as reagent validation. To evaluate the progress made towards reproducibility since 2013, GBSI identified and examined initiatives designed to advance quality and reproducibility. Through this process, we identified key roles for funders, journals, researchers and other stakeholders and recommended actions for future progress. This paper describes our findings and conclusions. F1000Research 2017-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5461896/ /pubmed/28620458 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11334.1 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Freedman LP et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Freedman, Leonard P. Venugopalan, Gautham Wisman, Rosann Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities |
title | Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities |
title_full | Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities |
title_fullStr | Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities |
title_full_unstemmed | Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities |
title_short | Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities |
title_sort | reproducibility2020: progress and priorities |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5461896/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28620458 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11334.1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT freedmanleonardp reproducibility2020progressandpriorities AT venugopalangautham reproducibility2020progressandpriorities AT wismanrosann reproducibility2020progressandpriorities |