Rigorous science: A how-to guide

mBio

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2016, Pages

  Casadevall, Arturo ^a   Fang, Ferric C ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTINUING EDUCATION; EDITORIAL; ERROR; ETHICS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HONESTY; HUMAN; LOGIC; MATHEMATICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PHILOSOPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENCE IN GENERAL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC RIGOR; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TEACHING; EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; LOGIC; PHILOSOPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85007574941     PISSN: 21612129     EISSN: 21507511     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01902-16     Document Type: Editorial

References (24)

1. Kline M. 1980. Mathematics: the loss of certainty. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
2. Begley CG, Ellis LM. 2012. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/483531a.
3. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1.
4. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 17028-17033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
5. Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2016. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio 7: e00809-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16.
6. Scannell JW, Bosley J. 2016. When quality beats quantity: decision theory, drug discovery, and the reproducibility crisis. PLoS One 11: e0147215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147215.
7. Bowen A, Casadevall A. 2015. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in bio-medical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112: 11335-11340. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504955112.
8. ASCB Data Reproducibility Task Force. 2014. How can scientists enhance rigor in conducting basic research and reporting research results? A white paper from the American Society for Cell Biology. American Society for Cell Biology, Bethesda, MD. http://www.ascb.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/11/How-can-scientist-enhance-rigor.pdf.
9. National Institutes of Health. 9 October 2015. Implementing rigor and transparency in NIH & AHRQ research grant applications. Notice number NOT-OD-16-011. National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Bethesda, MD. http://grants.nih.gov/ grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-011.html.
10. Casadevall A, Ellis LM, Davies EW, McFall-Ngai M, Fang FC. 2016. A framework for improving the quality of research in the biological sciences. mBio 7: e01256-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01256-16.
11. Harper D. 2016. "Rigor." Online etymology dictionary. http://www .etymonline.com/index.php?term=rigor.
12. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2016. "Rigor." Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc, Springfield, MA. http://www.merriamwebster. com/dictionary/rigor.
13. National Institutes of Health. 2016. Frequently asked questions. Rigor and transparency. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. http:// grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/faqs.htm.
14. Lamb E. 17 July 2012. 5 sigma what’s that? Observations. http://blogs .scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that.
15. Johnson VE. 2013. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 19313-19317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1313476110.
16. Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. 2014. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J 28: 3847-3855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/ fj.14-256735.
17. Popper KR, Hudson GE. 1963. Conjectures and refutations. Phys Today 16: 33-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3050617.
18. Wikipedia contributors. 23 February 2016. Intellectual honesty, on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Intellectual_honesty.
19. Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2012. Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Infect Immun 80: 891-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/ IAI.06183-11.
20. BakerM. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533: 452-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/533452a.
21. Weissgerber TL, Garovic VD, Milin-Lazovic JS, Winham SJ, Obradovic Z, Trzeciakowski JP, MilicNM. 2016. Reinventing biostatistics education for basic scientists. PLoS Biol 14: e1002430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.1002430.
22. Leek JT, Peng RD. 2015. Statistics: P values are just the tip of the iceberg. Nature 520: 612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/520612a.
23. BakerM. 2016. Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values. Nature 531: 151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19503.
24. Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2015. Impacted science: impact is not importance. mBio 6: e01593-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01593-15.