3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Training early career researchers to use meta-research to improve science: A participant-guided “learn by doing” approach

      discussion
      *
      PLoS Biology
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      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.

          Abstract

          Meta-research, or the science of science, is a powerful technique that scientists can use to improve science, however most scientists are unaware that meta-research exists and courses are rare. This initiative demonstrates the feasibility of a participant-guided “learn by doing” approach, in which a multidisciplinary, global team of early career researchers learned meta-research skills by working together to design, conduct and publish a meta-research study.

          Abstract

          This Community Page article describes a participant-guided "learn by doing" initiative, in which a multidisciplinary, global team of early career researchers learned meta-research skills by working together to design, conduct and publish a meta-research (science of science) study. Participants can now apply these skills to solve problems in their own fields.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

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

          Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

          A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm

            Figures in scientific publications are critically important because they often show the data supporting key findings. Our systematic review of research articles published in top physiology journals (n = 703) suggests that, as scientists, we urgently need to change our practices for presenting continuous data in small sample size studies. Papers rarely included scatterplots, box plots, and histograms that allow readers to critically evaluate continuous data. Most papers presented continuous data in bar and line graphs. This is problematic, as many different data distributions can lead to the same bar or line graph. The full data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. We recommend training investigators in data presentation, encouraging a more complete presentation of data, and changing journal editorial policies. Investigators can quickly make univariate scatterplots for small sample size studies using our Excel templates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

              Background and Objectives Randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment have been shown to reduce bias in human studies. Authors from the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) collaboration recently found that these features protect against bias in animal stroke studies. We extended the scope the work from CAMARADES to include investigations of treatments for any condition. Methods We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched Medline and Embase for systematic reviews of animal studies testing any intervention (against any control) and we included any disease area and outcome. We included reviews comparing randomized versus not randomized (but otherwise controlled), concealed versus unconcealed treatment allocation, or blinded versus unblinded outcome assessment. Results Thirty-one systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: 20 investigated treatments for experimental stroke, 4 reviews investigated treatments for spinal cord diseases, while 1 review each investigated treatments for bone cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, glioma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and treatments used in emergency medicine. In our sample 29% of studies reported randomization, 15% of studies reported allocation concealment, and 35% of studies reported blinded outcome assessment. We pooled the results in a meta-analysis, and in our primary analysis found that failure to randomize significantly increased effect sizes, whereas allocation concealment and blinding did not. In our secondary analyses we found that randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding reduced effect sizes, especially where outcomes were subjective. Conclusions Our study demonstrates the need for randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment in animal research across a wide range of outcomes and disease areas. Since human studies are often justified based on results from animal studies, our results suggest that unduly biased animal studies should not be allowed to constitute part of the rationale for human trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                PLoS Biol
                PLoS Biol
                plos
                plosbiol
                PLoS Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1544-9173
                1545-7885
                24 February 2021
                February 2021
                24 February 2021
                : 19
                : 2
                : e3001073
                Affiliations
                [001]QUEST–Quality | Ethics | Open Science | Translation, Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7490-2600
                Article
                PBIOLOGY-D-20-03091
                10.1371/journal.pbio.3001073
                7904195
                33626038
                f03c2292-a944-4be8-9f8e-b9459ea99e71
                © 2021 Tracey L. Weissgerber

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 5
                Funding
                Funded by: Berlin University Alliance
                Award ID: 301_TrainIndik
                Award Recipient :
                The condensed local course described in this publication was funded by the Berlin University Alliance within the Excellence Strategy of the federal and state governments (301_TrainIndik). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Community Page
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Labor Economics
                Employment
                Careers
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Instructors
                Science Policy
                Science and Technology Workforce
                Careers in Research
                Scientists
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Scientists
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Problem Solving
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Problem Solving
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Problem Solving
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Data Management
                Data Visualization
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Data Management
                Data Visualization
                Infographics
                Graphs

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article