Blog
About

122
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility

      ,

      Nature

      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research.

            The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature.

               Joshua Carp (2012)
              Replication of research findings is critical to the progress of scientific understanding. Accordingly, most scientific journals require authors to report experimental procedures in sufficient detail for independent researchers to replicate their work. To what extent do research reports in the functional neuroimaging literature live up to this standard? The present study evaluated methods reporting and methodological choices across 241 recent fMRI articles. Many studies did not report critical methodological details with regard to experimental design, data acquisition, and analysis. Further, many studies were underpowered to detect any but the largest statistical effects. Finally, data collection and analysis methods were highly flexible across studies, with nearly as many unique analysis pipelines as there were studies in the sample. Because the rate of false positive results is thought to increase with the flexibility of experimental designs, the field of functional neuroimaging may be particularly vulnerable to false positives. In sum, the present study documented significant gaps in methods reporting among fMRI studies. Improved methodological descriptions in research reports would yield significant benefits for the field. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature
                Nature
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                January 2014
                January 27 2014
                January 2014
                : 505
                : 7485
                : 612-613
                Article
                10.1038/505612a
                4058759
                24482835
                © 2014

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                Comments

                Comment on this article