Journals Unite for Reproducibility. Nature 515(7525):7.
Journals Unite for Reproducibility [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt] Consensus on reporting principles aims to improve quality control in biomedical research and encourage public trust in science. Reproducibility, rigour, transparency and independent verification are cornerstones of the scientific method. Of course, just because a result is reproducible does not make it right, and just because it is not reproducible does not make it wrong. A transparent and rigorous approach, however, will almost always shine a light on issues of reproducibility. This light ensures that science moves forward, through independent verifications as well as the course corrections that come from refutations and the objective examination of the resulting data. Related stories Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis' A blueprint to boost reproducibility of results Code share More related stories It was with the goal of strengthening such approaches in the biomedical sciences that a group of editors representing more than 30 major journals; representatives from funding agencies; and scientific leaders assembled at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's headquarters in June 2014 to discuss principles and guidelines for preclinical biomedical research. The gathering was convened by the US National Institutes of Health, Nature and Science (see Science 346, 679; 2014). The discussion ranged from what journals were already doing to address reproducibility – and the effectiveness of those measures – to the magnitude of the problem and the cost of solutions. The attendees agreed on a common set of Principles and Guidelines in Reporting Preclinical Research (see go.nature.com/ezjl1p) that list proposed journal policies and author reporting requirements in order to promote transparency and reproducibility. It was with the goal of strengthening such approaches in the biomedical sciences that a group of editors representing more than 30 major journals; representatives from funding agencies; and scientific leaders assembled at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's headquarters in June 2014 to discuss principles and guidelines for preclinical biomedical research. The gathering was convened by the US National Institutes of Health, Nature and Science (see Science 346, 679; 2014). The discussion ranged from what journals were already doing to address reproducibility – and the effectiveness of those measures – to the magnitude of the problem and the cost of solutions. The attendees agreed on a common set of Principles and Guidelines in Reporting Preclinical Research (see go.nature.com/ezjl1p) that list proposed journal policies and author reporting requirements in order to promote transparency and reproducibility.
@article{natureJournalsUniteReproducibility2014,
  title = {Journals Unite for Reproducibility},
  author = {{Nature}},
  date = {2014-11},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  volume = {515},
  pages = {7},
  issn = {0028-0836},
  doi = {10.1038/515007a},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/515007a},
  abstract = {[Excerpt] Consensus on reporting principles aims to improve quality control in biomedical research and encourage public trust in science.

Reproducibility, rigour, transparency and independent verification are cornerstones of the scientific method. Of course, just because a result is reproducible does not make it right, and just because it is not reproducible does not make it wrong. A transparent and rigorous approach, however, will almost always shine a light on issues of reproducibility. This light ensures that science moves forward, through independent verifications as well as the course corrections that come from refutations and the objective examination of the resulting data.

Related stories Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis' A blueprint to boost reproducibility of results Code share More related stories It was with the goal of strengthening such approaches in the biomedical sciences that a group of editors representing more than 30 major journals; representatives from funding agencies; and scientific leaders assembled at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's headquarters in June 2014 to discuss principles and guidelines for preclinical biomedical research. The gathering was convened by the US National Institutes of Health, Nature and Science (see Science 346, 679; 2014).

The discussion ranged from what journals were already doing to address reproducibility -- and the effectiveness of those measures -- to the magnitude of the problem and the cost of solutions. The attendees agreed on a common set of Principles and Guidelines in Reporting Preclinical Research (see go.nature.com/ezjl1p) that list proposed journal policies and author reporting requirements in order to promote transparency and reproducibility.

It was with the goal of strengthening such approaches in the biomedical sciences that a group of editors representing more than 30 major journals; representatives from funding agencies; and scientific leaders assembled at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's headquarters in June 2014 to discuss principles and guidelines for preclinical biomedical research. The gathering was convened by the US National Institutes of Health, Nature and Science (see Science 346, 679; 2014).

The discussion ranged from what journals were already doing to address reproducibility -- and the effectiveness of those measures -- to the magnitude of the problem and the cost of solutions. The attendees agreed on a common set of Principles and Guidelines in Reporting Preclinical Research (see go.nature.com/ezjl1p) that list proposed journal policies and author reporting requirements in order to promote transparency and reproducibility.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13423278,editorial,reproducibility,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication},
  number = {7525}
}
Downloads: 0