Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility. Nature 496(7446):398. ![Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex [Excerpt] Over the past year, Nature has published a string of articles that highlight failures in the reliability and reproducibility of published research (collected and freely available at go.nature.com/huhbyr). The problems arise in laboratories, but journals such as this one compound them when they fail to exert sufficient scrutiny over the results that they publish, and when they do not publish enough information for other researchers to assess results properly. From next month, Nature and the Nature research journals will introduce editorial measures to address the problem by improving the consistency and quality of reporting in life-sciences articles. To ease the interpretation and improve the reliability of published results we will more systematically ensure that key methodological details are reported, and we will give more space to methods sections. We will examine statistics more closely and encourage authors to be transparent, for example by including their raw data. Central to this initiative is a checklist intended to prompt authors to disclose technical and statistical information in their submissions, and to encourage referees to consider aspects important for research reproducibility (go.nature.com/oloeip). It was developed after discussions with researchers on the problems that lead to irreproducibility, including workshops organized last year by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes. It also draws on published concerns about reporting standards (or the lack of them) and the collective experience of editors at Nature journals.
@article{natureAnnouncementReducingOur2013,
title = {Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility},
author = {{Nature}},
date = {2013-04},
journaltitle = {Nature},
volume = {496},
pages = {398},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/496398a},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/496398a},
abstract = {[Excerpt]
Over the past year, Nature has published a string of articles that highlight failures in the reliability and reproducibility of published research (collected and freely available at go.nature.com/huhbyr). The problems arise in laboratories, but journals such as this one compound them when they fail to exert sufficient scrutiny over the results that they publish, and when they do not publish enough information for other researchers to assess results properly.
From next month, Nature and the Nature research journals will introduce editorial measures to address the problem by improving the consistency and quality of reporting in life-sciences articles. To ease the interpretation and improve the reliability of published results we will more systematically ensure that key methodological details are reported, and we will give more space to methods sections. We will examine statistics more closely and encourage authors to be transparent, for example by including their raw data.
Central to this initiative is a checklist intended to prompt authors to disclose technical and statistical information in their submissions, and to encourage referees to consider aspects important for research reproducibility (go.nature.com/oloeip). It was developed after discussions with researchers on the problems that lead to irreproducibility, including workshops organized last year by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes. It also draws on published concerns about reporting standards (or the lack of them) and the collective experience of editors at Nature journals.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12359668,accuracy-vs-precision,check-list,free-scientific-knowledge,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing,statistics},
number = {7446}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"dhiKdi5topHzt8YDx","bibbaseid":"nature-announcementreducingourirreproducibility","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Nature"],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility","author":[{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Nature"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2013-04","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"496","pages":"398","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/496398a","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/496398a","abstract":"[Excerpt] Over the past year, Nature has published a string of articles that highlight failures in the reliability and reproducibility of published research (collected and freely available at go.nature.com/huhbyr). The problems arise in laboratories, but journals such as this one compound them when they fail to exert sufficient scrutiny over the results that they publish, and when they do not publish enough information for other researchers to assess results properly. From next month, Nature and the Nature research journals will introduce editorial measures to address the problem by improving the consistency and quality of reporting in life-sciences articles. To ease the interpretation and improve the reliability of published results we will more systematically ensure that key methodological details are reported, and we will give more space to methods sections. We will examine statistics more closely and encourage authors to be transparent, for example by including their raw data. Central to this initiative is a checklist intended to prompt authors to disclose technical and statistical information in their submissions, and to encourage referees to consider aspects important for research reproducibility (go.nature.com/oloeip). It was developed after discussions with researchers on the problems that lead to irreproducibility, including workshops organized last year by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes. It also draws on published concerns about reporting standards (or the lack of them) and the collective experience of editors at Nature journals.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12359668,accuracy-vs-precision,check-list,free-scientific-knowledge,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing,statistics","number":"7446","bibtex":"@article{natureAnnouncementReducingOur2013,\n title = {Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility},\n author = {{Nature}},\n date = {2013-04},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {496},\n pages = {398},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/496398a},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/496398a},\n abstract = {[Excerpt] \n\nOver the past year, Nature has published a string of articles that highlight failures in the reliability and reproducibility of published research (collected and freely available at go.nature.com/huhbyr). The problems arise in laboratories, but journals such as this one compound them when they fail to exert sufficient scrutiny over the results that they publish, and when they do not publish enough information for other researchers to assess results properly.\n\nFrom next month, Nature and the Nature research journals will introduce editorial measures to address the problem by improving the consistency and quality of reporting in life-sciences articles. To ease the interpretation and improve the reliability of published results we will more systematically ensure that key methodological details are reported, and we will give more space to methods sections. We will examine statistics more closely and encourage authors to be transparent, for example by including their raw data.\n\nCentral to this initiative is a checklist intended to prompt authors to disclose technical and statistical information in their submissions, and to encourage referees to consider aspects important for research reproducibility (go.nature.com/oloeip). It was developed after discussions with researchers on the problems that lead to irreproducibility, including workshops organized last year by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes. It also draws on published concerns about reporting standards (or the lack of them) and the collective experience of editors at Nature journals.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12359668,accuracy-vs-precision,check-list,free-scientific-knowledge,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing,statistics},\n number = {7446}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Nature"],"key":"natureAnnouncementReducingOur2013","id":"natureAnnouncementReducingOur2013","bibbaseid":"nature-announcementreducingourirreproducibility","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/496398a"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-12359668","accuracy-vs-precision","check-list","free-scientific-knowledge","reproducibility","reproducible-research","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-knowledge-sharing","statistics"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:16.838Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-12359668","accuracy-vs-precision","check-list","free-scientific-knowledge","reproducibility","reproducible-research","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-knowledge-sharing","statistics"],"search_terms":["announcement","reducing","irreproducibility","nature"],"title":"Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}