289
views
2
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Framework for Improving the Quality of Research in the Biological Sciences

      editorial

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          The American Academy of Microbiology convened a colloquium to discuss problems in the biological sciences, with emphasis on identifying mechanisms to improve the quality of research. Participants from various disciplines made six recommendations: (i) design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria to recognize and reward high-quality scientific research; (ii) require universal training in good scientific practices, appropriate statistical usage, and responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists; (iii) establish open data at the timing of publication as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise; (iv) encourage scientific journals to publish negative data that meet methodologic standards of quality; (v) agree upon common criteria among scientific journals for retraction of published papers, to provide consistency and transparency; and (vi) strengthen research integrity oversight and training. These recommendations constitute an actionable framework that, in combination, could improve the quality of biological research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency

          Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

            Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855-3859 Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,” we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015.

              The use and misuse of P values has generated extensive debates.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor in Chief, mBio
                Role: AAM Colloquium Steering Committee Member
                Role: Publishing Ethics Manager, ASM
                Role: Editor, mBio, Senior Editor, mSystems
                Role: Editor in Chief, Infection and Immunity
                Journal
                mBio
                MBio
                mbio
                mbio
                mBio
                mBio
                American Society for Microbiology (1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC )
                2150-7511
                30 August 2016
                Jul-Aug 2016
                : 7
                : 4
                : e01256-16
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                [b ]Division of Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [c ]American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA
                [d ]Pacific Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
                [e ]University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to Arturo Casadevall, acasade1@ 123456jhu.edu .
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9402-9167
                Article
                mBio01256-16
                10.1128/mBio.01256-16
                4999552
                27578756
                289cf3d5-c717-434b-a4e4-7342f6ce3e05
                Copyright © 2016 Casadevall et al.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

                History
                Page count
                supplementary-material: 0, Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 40, Pages: 5, Words: 4420
                Categories
                Editorial
                Custom metadata
                July/August 2016

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log