An open science peer review Oath

F1000Research

Volumn 3, Issue , 2015, Pages

  MacLean, Dan ^k   Aleksic, Jelena ^a   Alexa, Adrian ^b   Attwood, Teresa K ^c   Chue Hong, Neil ⁱ   Dahlö, Martin ^d   Davey, Robert ^e   Dinkel, Holger ^f   Förstner, Konrad U ^g   Grigorov, Ivo ^h   Hériché, Jean Karim ^f   Lahti, Leo ^j   Markie, Michael L ^l   Molloy, Jenny ^m   Schneider, Maria Victoria ^e   Scott, Camille ⁿ   Smith Unna, Richard ^a   Vieira, Bruno Miguel ^o  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b DNAdigest   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e EARLHAM INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^f EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^h TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

ⁱ Software Sustainability Institute   (United Kingdom)

^j Open Knowledge Finland Open Science Work Group   (Finland)

^k SAINSBURY LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

^l F1000Research   (United Kingdom)

^m UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^o QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OPEN SCIENCE PRINCIPLE; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS;

EID: 84923382591     PISSN: 20461402     EISSN: 1759796X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.5686.2     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Collins FS Tabak LA: Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505(7485):612-3. 24482835 10.1038/505612a 4058759
2. Ioannidis JP: Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. 16060722 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 1182327
3. Ioannidis JP Allison DB Ball CA: Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nat Genet. 2009;41(2):149-55. 19174838 10.1038/ng.295
4. Begley GC Ioannidis JP: Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116-126. 25552691 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819
5. Prinz F Schlange T Asadullah K: Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712. 21892149 10.1038/nrd3439-c1
6. Hines WC Su Y Kuhn I: Sorting out the FACS: a devil in the details. Cell Rep. 2014;6(5):779-81. 24630040 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.02.021
7. Vasilevsky NA Brush MH Paddock H: On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;1:e148. 24032093 10.7717/peerj.148
8. Molloy JC: The Open Knowledge Foundation: open data means better science. PLoS Biol. 2011;9(12):e1001195. 22162946 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195 3232214
9. Pereira S Gibbs RA McGuire AL: Open access data sharing in genomic research. Genes (Basel). 2014;5(3):739-747. 25178093 10.3390/genes5030739 4198928
10. Patel J: Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):128. 25285376
11. Glen AS: A New "Golden Rule? for Peer Review? Bull Ecol Soc Am. 2014;95(4):431-434. 10.1890/0012-9623-95.4.431
12. Siler K Lee K Bero L: Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;pii: 201418218. 25535380 10.1073/pnas.1418218112
13. Watson M: The reviewer's oath .2013. Reference Source
14. Alexander S: The Peer Reviewer's Oath .2014. Reference Source
15. Verger A: My Reviewer Oath .2014. Reference Source
16. MacLean D Aleksic J Attwood TK: Open Science Peer Review Oath. figshare. 2014. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1233912