Guidelines for manuscript submission in the peer-reviewed pharmacological literature

Biochemical Pharmacology

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 225-235

  Mullane, Kevin ^a   Enna, S J ^b   Piette, Jacques ^c   Williams, Michael ^d  

^a Profectus Pharma Consulting   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Data reporting; Experiment planning; Reagent validation; Reproducibility; Statistics

Indexed keywords

NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; OPIATE AGONIST;

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY; CHECKLIST; DIGITAL IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGING SOFTWARE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PHARMACOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WESTERN BLOTTING; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHECKLIST; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PHARMACOLOGY;

EID: 84941809015     PISSN: 00062952     EISSN: 18732968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2015.06.023     Document Type: Editorial

References (92)

1. J. Le Fanu The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine 2011 Abacus London
2. C.J.L. Murray, T. Vos, R. Lozano, M. Naghavi, A.D. Flaxman, C. Michaud, and et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 Lancet 380 2012 2197 2223
3. T. Misteli Eliminating the impact of the Impact Factor J. Cell Biol. 201 2013 651 652
4. B. Alberts, M.W. Kirschner, S. Tilghman, and H. Varmus Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 111 2014 5773 5777
5. D. Hicks, P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. De Rijcke, and I. Rafols The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics Nature 529 2015 429 431
6. M. Wadman NIH mulls rules for validating key results Nature 500 2013 14 16
7. M. Bissel Reproducibility: the risks of the replication drive Nature 503 2013 333 334
8. F. Prinz, T. Schlange, and K. Asadullah Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 2011 712 713
9. C.G. Begley, and L.M. Ellis Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research Nature 483 2012 531 533
10. Economist Unreliable Research. Trouble at the Lab 2013 The Economist October 19, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble
11. F.S. Collins, and L.A. Tabak Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility Nature 505 2014 612 613
12. C.G. Begley, and J.P.A. Ioannidis Reproducibility in science improving the standard for basic and preclinical research Circ. Res. 116 2015 116 126
13. C. Lancaster The acid test for biological science: STAP cells, trust, and replication Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015 10.1007/s11948-015-9628-2
14. B. Borrel A medical Madoff: anesthesiologist faked data in 21 studies Sci. Am. 2009 March 10, 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data
15. N. Wade University Suspects Fraud by a Researcher Who Studied Red Wine 2012 New York Times January 11, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/science/fraud-charges-for-dipak-k-das-a-university-of-connecticut-researcher.html
16. Y. Bhattacharjee The Mind of a Con Man 2013 New York Times Magazine April 26. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&-r=1&
17. D. Fanelli How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data PLoS ONE 4 2009 e5738
18. J.C. Hu Why Do Scientists Commit Fraud? 2014 Slate August 6. http://www.slate.com/articles/health-and-science/science/2014/08/fraud-in-stem-cell-research-japanese-biologist-yoshiki-sasai-commits-suicide.html
19. J.P.A. Ioannidis Why science is not necessarily self-correcting Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7 2012 645 654
20. L.I. Meho The rise and rise of citation analysis Phys. World 20 2007 32 36
21. P. Davis, and A. Mandavilli Peer review: Trial by Twitter Nature 469 2011 286 287
22. D. Cressey 'Sleeping beauty' papers slumber for decades Nature 2015 10.1038/nature.2015.17615
23. M. Marino The use and misuse of statistical methodologies in pharmacology research Biochem. Pharmacol. 87 2014 78 92
24. D. Colquhoun An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values R. Soc. Open Sci. 1 2015 140216
25. J. Lehrer The Truth Wears off 2010 New Yorker December 10. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off
26. S. McLain Not Breaking News: Many Scientific Studies are Ultimately Proved Wrong 2013 Guardian 17 September 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong
27. M. Baker Blame it on the antibodies Nature 521 2015 274 276
28. W.L. Kraus Editorial: do you see what I see? Quality, reliability, and reproducibility in biomedical research Mol. Endocrinol. 38 2014 277 280
29. J. Couzin-Frankel Aging genes: the sirtuin story unravels Science 334 2011 1194 1198
30. J.C. McGrath, and E. Lilley Implementing guidelines on reporting research using animals (ARRIVE etc.): new requirements for publication in BJP Br. J. Pharmacol. 172 2015 3189 3193
31. T. Kenakin, D.B. Bylund, M.L. Toews, K. Mullane, R.J. Winquist, and M. Williams Replicated, replicable and relevant-target engagement and pharmacological experimentation in the 21st century Biochem. Pharmacol. 87 2014 64 77
32. S.M. Abdel-Rahman, and R.E. Kauffman The integration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: understanding dose-response Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 44 2004 111 136
33. J. Fan, and I.A.M. de Lannoy Pharmacokinetics Biochem. Pharmacol. 87 2014 93 120
34. J. Kirchmair, A.H. Göller, D. Lang, J. Kunze, B. Testa, I.D. Wilson, and et al. Predicting drug metabolism: experiment and/or computation? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 2015 387 404
35. T. Kenakin A Pharmacology Primer: Techniques for More Effective and Strategic Drug Discovery 4th ed. 2014 Elsevier Academic Press San Diego, CA
36. C.G. Begley Reproducibility: six red flags for suspect work Nature 497 2013 433 434
37. J.C. McGrath, G.B. Drummond, E.M. McLachlan, C. Kilkenny, and C.L. Wainwright Guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals: the ARRIVE guidelines Br. J. Pharmacol. 160 2010 1573 1576
38. C. Kilkenny, W. Browne, I.C. Cuthill, M. Emerson, and D.G. Altman Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines Br. J. Pharmacol. 160 2010 1577 1579
39. C.R. Hooijmans, M. Leenaars, and M. Ritskes-Hoitinga A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible Altern. Lab. Anim. 38 2010 167 182
40. C.R. Hooijmans, R. de Vries, M. Leenaars, J. Curfs, and M. Ritskes-Hoitinga Improving planning, design, reporting and scientific quality of animal experiments by using the Gold Standard Publication Checklist, in addition to the ARRIVE guidelines Br. J. Pharmacol. 162 2011 1259 1260
41. S.C. Landis, S.G. Amara, K. Asadullah, C.P. Austin, R. Blumenstein, E.W. Bradley, and et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research Nature 490 2012 187 191
42. Nature Reducing our irreproducibility Nature 496 2013 398
43. M.J. Curtis, R.A. Bond, D. Spina, A. Ahluwalia, S.P.A. Alexander, M.A. Giembycz, and et al. Experimental design and analysis and their reporting: new guidance for publication in BJP Br. J. Pharmacol. 172 2015 3461 3471
44. M. Vore, D. Abernethy, R. Hall, M. Jarvis, K. Meier, E. Edward Morgan, and et al. ASPET journals support the National Institutes of Health principles and guidelines for reporting preclinical research Pharmacol. Rev. 67 2015 562 563
45. J.W. Tukey We need both exploratory and confirmatory Am. Stat. 34 1980 23 25
46. L.G. Biesecker Hypothesis-generating research and predictive medicine Genome Res. 23 2013 1051 1053
47. J. Kimmelman, J.S. Mogil, and U. Dirnagl Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation PLoS Biol. 12 2014 e1001863
48. J.J. Goeman, and A. Solari Multiple hypothesis testing in genomics Stat. Med. 33 2014 1946 1978
49. M.D. Ritchie, E.R. Holzinger, R. Li, S.A. Pendergrass, and D. Kim Methods of integrating data to uncover genotype-phenotype interactions Nat. Rev. Genet. 16 2015 85 97
50. J. Neimark Line of attack Science 347 2015 938 940
51. M. Yu, S.K. Selvaraj, M.M. Liang-Chu, S. Aghajani, M. Busse, J. Yuan, and et al. A resource for cell line authentication, annotation and quality control Nature 520 2015 307 311
52. L.P. Freedman, M.C. Gibson, S.P. Ethier, H.R. Soule, R.M. Neve, and Y.A. Reid Reproducibility: changing the policies and culture of cell line authentication Nat. Methods 12 2015 493 497
53. R.M. Nardone Curbing rampant cross-contamination and misidentification of cell lines BioTechniques 45 2008 221 227
54. R.J. Geraghty, A. Capes-Davis, J.M. Davis, J. Downward, R.I. Freshney, I. Knezevic, and et al. Guidelines for the use of cell lines in biomedical research Br. J. Cancer 111 2014 1021 1046
55. J.J. Landry, P.T. Pyl, T. Rausch, T. Zichner, M.M. Tekkedil, and et al. The genomic and transcriptomic landscape of a HeLa cell line G3: Genes Genomes Genet. 3121 2013 3 24
56. W. Jager, Y. Horiguchi, J. Shah, T. Hyashi, S. Awrey, K.M. Gust, and et al. Hiding in plain view: genetic profiling reveals decades old cross contamination of bladder cancer cell line KU7 with HeLa J. Urol. 190 2013 1404 1409
57. J. Neimark The Dirty Little Secret of Cancer Research 2014 Discover Magazine November 2014 http://discovermagazine.com/2014/nov/20-trial-and-error
58. T.A. Egelhofer, A. Minoda, S. Klugman, K. Lee, P. Kolasinska-Zwierz, A.A. Alekseyenko, and et al. An assessment of histone-modification antibody quality Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18 2011 91 93
59. M.H. Parseghian Hitchhiker antigens: inconsistent ChiP results, questionable immunohistology data, and poor antibody performance may have a common factor Biochem. Cell Biol. 91 2013 378 394
60. A. Bradbury, and A. Pluckthun Standardize antibodies used in research Nature 518 2015 27 29
61. M.C. Michel, T. Wieland, and G. Tsujimoto How reliable are G-protein-coupled receptor antibodies? Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol. 379 2009 385 388
62. W.G. Kaelin Jr. Use and abuse of RNAi to study mammalian gene function Science 337 2012 421 422
63. R.C. Wilson, and J.A. Doudna Molecular mechanisms of RNA interference Annu. Rev. Biophys. 42 2013 217 239
64. J.J. Ipsaro, and L. Joshua-Tor From guide to target: molecular insights into eukaryotic RNA-interference machinery Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22 2015 20 28
65. National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th ed. 2011 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-Use-of-Laboratory-Animals.pdf
66. S. Jones-Bolin Guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals in biomedical research Curr. Protoc. Pharmacol. 59 2012 A.4B.1-A.4B.9
67. T.B. Durham, and M.-J. Blanco Target engagement in lead generation Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 26 2015 998 1008
68. R.A. Copeland, D.L. Pompliano, and T.D. Meek Drug-target residence time and its implications for lead optimization Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5 2006 730 739
69. P.J. Tummino, and R.A. Copeland Residence time of receptor-ligand complexes and its effect on biological function Biochemistry 47 2008 5481 5492
70. H. Motulsky Editorial: common misconceptions about data analysis and statistics J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 351 2014 200 205
71. F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, and A.-G. Lang Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses Behav. Res. Methods 41 2009 1149 1160
72. C. Kilkenny, W.J. Browne, I.C. Cuthill, M. Emerson, and D.G. Altman Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research Animals 4 2014 35 44
73. V.E. Johnson Revised standards for statistical evidence Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 2013 19313 19317
74. R. Nuzzo Scientific method: statistical errors Nature 506 2014 510 512
75. J. Simmons, L. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting anything as significant Psychol. Sci. 22 2011 1359 1366
76. L.G. Halsey, D. Curran-Everett, S.L. Vowler, and G.B. Drummond The fickle P value generates irreproducible results Nat. Methods 12 2015 179 185
77. S. Begley In Cancer Science, Many "Discoveries" Don't Hold Up 2012 Reuters March 28. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328
78. M.B. Brown, and A.B. Forsythe Robust tests for equality of variances J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69 1974 364 367
79. U.S. Neill Stop misbehaving J. Clin Invest. 116 2006 1740 1741
80. M. Rossner, and K. Yamada What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation J. Cell Biol. 166 2004 11 15
81. M. Blatt, and C. Martin Manipulation and misconduct in the handling of image data Plant Physiol. 163 2013 3 4
82. M.P. Oksvold Incidence of data duplications in a randomly selected pool of life science publications Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015 10.1007/s11948-015-9668-7
83. A. Newman The Art of Detecting Data and Image Manipulation. Elsevier Editors Update 2013 November, 2013. http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/issue-41-november-2013/the-art-of-detecting-data-and-image-manipulation/
84. J. Haimes, and M. Kelley Demonstration of a ΔΔCq Calculation Method to Compute Relative Gene Expression from qPCR Data 2004 GE Healthcare http://dharmacon.gelifesciences.com/uploadedfiles/resources/delta-cq-solaris-technote.pdf
85. C.H. Arrowsmith, J.E. Audia, C. Austin, J. Baell, J. Bennett, J. Blagg, and et al. The promise and peril of chemical probes Nat. Chem. Biol. 11 2015 536 541
86. S.A. Bustin, V. Benes, J.A. Garson, J. Hellemans, J. Huggett, and M. Kubista The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments Clin. Chem. 55 2009 611 622
87. N.L. Kerr HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2 1998 196 217
88. N. Kriegeskorte, W.K. Simmons, P.S.F. Bellgowan, and C.I. Baker Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping Nat. Neurosci. 12 2009 535 540
89. K. Mullane, R.J. Winquist, and M. Williams Pharmacology in 21st century biomedical research Biochem. Pharmacol. 87 2014 1 3
90. K. Siler, K. Lee, and L. Bero Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 2015 360 365
91. I. Chalmers, M.B. Bracken, B. Djulbegovic, S. Garattini, J. Grant, A.M. Gülmezoglu, and et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set Lancet 383 2014 156 165
92. J.P.A. Ioannidis, S. Greenland, M.A. Hlatky, M.J. Khoury, M.R. Macleod, D. Moher, and et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis Lancet 383 2014 166 175