bioRxivScientific Communication & Education
Reproducibility2020: Progress and Priorities
Abstract
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. 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.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey
K. D. Cobey, S. Ebrahimzadeh, … D. Moher·bioRxiv·Sep 18, 2023
- Evaluation of Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Sports Medicine Research: A Cross-sectional study
- Rigor and Transparency Index, a new metric of quality for assessing biological and medical science methods.
J. Menke, M. Roelandse, … A. E. Bandrowski·bioRxiv·Jan 15, 2020
- How Changes in Common Practice Can Improve the Quality of Biomedical Science
M. Steinfath, S. Vogl, … G. Schoenfelder·bioRxiv·Nov 13, 2017
- Science with no fiction: measuring the veracity of scientific reports by citation analysis
Peter Grabitz, Yuri Lazebnik, … Sean Rife·bioRxiv·Aug 9, 2017
- Analysis of Practices to Promote Reproducibility and Transparency in Anaesthesiology Research: Are Important Aspects Hidden Behind the Drapes?