Promoting Research Resource Identification at JCN. Bandrowski, A.; Tan, S.; and Hof, P. R. 522(8):1707.
Promoting Research Resource Identification at JCN [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt] [] [...] [] The attention of scientists, editors, and policymakers alike have all turned recently to the issue of reproducibility in scientific research, focusing on research spanning from the pharmaceutical industry (Begley and Ellis, 2012) to the highest levels of government (Collins and Tabak, 2014; see also McNutt, 2014). While these commentaries point out that scientific misconduct is quite rare, they do point to a confluence of factors that hinder the reproducibility of scientific findings, including the identification of key reagents, such as antibodies and other materials [...]. [] There have been indeed some notable failures of antibody reagents in the 1970's that led to retractions of important papers describing major neural systems. The field of anatomy has largely learned from these early experiences and regulated reporting of anatomical findings, while other factors remain a source of concern. [...] [] Although the identification of material reagents does not guarantee reproducibility, it is a necessary criterion for replication of any study. To this end, we will continue to support rigorous identification of antibody reagents, but in joining the Resource Identification Initiative's efforts, we also ask authors to improve identification of other reagents, organisms, databases and software tools which they report in our journal by citing Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their papers. These can be easily searched for and obtained from RII's ” Research Identification Portal” [...]
@article{bandrowskiPromotingResearchResource2014,
  title = {Promoting Research Resource Identification at {{JCN}}},
  author = {Bandrowski, Anita and Tan, Serena and Hof, Patrick R.},
  date = {2014-06},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Comparative Neurology},
  volume = {522},
  pages = {1707},
  issn = {0021-9967},
  doi = {10.1002/cne.23585},
  url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14027390},
  abstract = {[Excerpt]

[] [...]

[] The attention of scientists, editors, and policymakers alike have all turned recently to the issue of reproducibility in scientific research, focusing on research spanning from the pharmaceutical industry (Begley and Ellis, 2012) to the highest levels of government (Collins and Tabak, 2014; see also McNutt, 2014). While these commentaries point out that scientific misconduct is quite rare, they do point to a confluence of factors that hinder the reproducibility of scientific findings, including the identification of key reagents, such as antibodies and other materials [...].

[] There have been indeed some notable failures of antibody reagents in the 1970's that led to retractions of important papers describing major neural systems. The field of anatomy has largely learned from these early experiences and regulated reporting of anatomical findings, while other factors remain a source of concern. [...]

[] Although the identification of material reagents does not guarantee reproducibility, it is a necessary criterion for replication of any study. To this end, we will continue to support rigorous identification of antibody reagents, but in joining the Resource Identification Initiative's efforts, we also ask authors to improve identification of other reagents, organisms, databases and software tools which they report in our journal by citing Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their papers. These can be easily searched for and obtained from RII's ” Research Identification Portal” [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14027390,~to-add-doi-URL,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,open-science,reproducibility,reproducible-research,research-management,research-metrics,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication},
  number = {8}
}
Downloads: 0