Blog
About

80
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility

      , ,  

      Nature

      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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 3

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

          Six red flags for suspect work.

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

            Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward.

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

              A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic

              Background The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries depend on findings from academic investigators prior to initiating programs to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic agents to benefit cancer patients. The success of these programs depends on the validity of published findings. This validity, represented by the reproducibility of published findings, has come into question recently as investigators from companies have raised the issue of poor reproducibility of published results from academic laboratories. Furthermore, retraction rates in high impact journals are climbing. Methods and Findings To examine a microcosm of the academic experience with data reproducibility, we surveyed the faculty and trainees at MD Anderson Cancer Center using an anonymous computerized questionnaire; we sought to ascertain the frequency and potential causes of non-reproducible data. We found that ∼50% of respondents had experienced at least one episode of the inability to reproduce published data; many who pursued this issue with the original authors were never able to identify the reason for the lack of reproducibility; some were even met with a less than “collegial” interaction. Conclusions These results suggest that the problem of data reproducibility is real. Biomedical science needs to establish processes to decrease the problem and adjudicate discrepancies in findings when they are discovered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature
                Nature
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                September 2015
                September 1 2015
                September 2015
                : 525
                : 7567
                : 25-27
                Article
                10.1038/525025a
                26333454
                © 2015

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                Comments

                Comment on this article