A living document: Reincarnating the research article

Trials

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Shanahan, Daniel R ^a  

^a BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; FRAUD; GENETICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PHYSICS; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ARTICLE; RESEARCH ETHICS; TYPES OF ARTICLE OR STUDY; VALIDITY; ACCESS TO INFORMATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARDS; WRITING;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; QUALITY CONTROL; WRITING;

EID: 84928159750     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0666-5     Document Type: Note

References (37)

1. Nielsen M. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.
2. Velterop JJM. Keeping the minutes of science. In: Electronic library and visual information research (ELVIRA 2). In: Collier M, Arnold K, editors. Proceedings of the second ELVIRA conference at De Montfort University. Milton Keynes: Aslib; 1995.
3. Joining the reproducibility initiative. Nat Nanotechnol. 2014; 9:949.
4. Singh S. Fermat's Last Theorem. London: Fourth Estate Ltd.; 2002.
5. Lang T, Altman D. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in clinical medical journals: the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature, or SAMPL Guidelines. In: Science Editors' Handbook. Edited by Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A: European Association of Science Editors; 2013. 175-179.
6. 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;10:712.
7. Mobley A, Linder SK, Braeuer R, Ellis LM, Zwelling L. A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One. 2013;8:e63221.
8. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531-3.
9. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Lau J. Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence? BMJ. 2001;322:879-80.
10. Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Kundu D, Bruckdorfer KR, Ebrahim S. Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? Lancet. 2004;363:1724-7.
11. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet. 2004;363:1728-31.
12. Morrison SJ. Reproducibility project: cancer biology: time to do something about reproducibility. eLife. 2014;3:e03981.
13. Ioannidis JPA. Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;58:543-8.
14. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.
15. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004; 291: 291(20):2457-65.
16. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001666.
17. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529-41.
18. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Clinical Trial Registration. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html Accessed 19 March 2015.
19. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane Review Syst Rev. 2012;1:60.
20. Altman DG, Furberg CD, Grimshaw JM, Rothwell PM. Lead editorial Trials - using the opportunities of electronic publishing to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Trials. 2006;7:6.
21. Chalmers I, Altman DG. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet. 1999;353:490-3.
22. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.
23. Altman DG, Furberg CD, Grimshaw JM, Shanahan DR. Linked publications from a single trial: a thread of evidence. Trials. 2014;15:369.
24. Horton R. The scientific paper: fraudulent or formative? Abstract presented at Third International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications, Prague, September 1997. www.peerreviewcongress.org/abstracts_1997.html#thfo Accessed 19 March 2015.
25. Cochrane J. The Third International Stroke Trial (IST-3) - an exemplary threaded publication? http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2012/05/25/the-third-international-stroke-trial-ist-3-an-exemplary-threaded-publication/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
26. WHO Data Set http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/trds/en/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
27. Amsen E. What is post-publication peer review? http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/07/08/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
28. Grossman, A. Science Open: the next wave of Open Access? http://www.euroscientist.com/scienceopen-next-wave-open-access/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
29. EQUATOR Network http://www.equator-network.org/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
30. Wheary J, Wild L, Schutz B, Weyher C. Living reviews in relativity: thinking and developing electronically. J Electronic Publishing. 1998; 4(2).
31. elife Science introduces eLife Lens. http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/elife-sciences-introduces-elife-lens-a-cutting-edge-open-source-tool-for-reading-using-content-online Accessed 19 March 2015.
32. Fomel S, Claerbout J. Guest editors' introduction: reproducible research. Comput Sci Engineering. 2009;11:5-7.
33. Leisch F. Sweave, Part I: Mixing R and LaTeX: a short introduction to the Sweave file format and corresponding R functions. R News. 2002;2:28-31.
34. Kauppinen T, Espindola GMD. Linked open science-communicating, sharing and evaluating data methods and results for executable papers. Procedia Comput Sci. 2011;4:726.
35. A history of storage costs (update) http://www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte-update/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
36. Nature encode http://www.nature.com/encode/#/threads/ Accessed 19 March 2015.
37. Science Code Manifesto homepage. http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/ Accessed 19 March 2015.