The reproducibility wars: Successful, unsuccessful, uninterpretable, exact, conceptual, triangulated, contested replication

Clinical Chemistry

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 943-945

  Ioannidis, John P A ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; LABORATORY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; PSYCHOLOGIST; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; TUMOR XENOGRAFT; ANIMAL;

ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85018297386     PISSN: 00099147     EISSN: 15308561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271965     Document Type: Review

References (5)

1. Nosek BA, Errington TM. Making sense of replications. Elife 2017;6:e23383.
2. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 2015;349: Aac4716.
3. Emmert-Streib F, Dehmer M, Yli-Harja O. Against dataism and for data sharing of big biomedical and clinical data with research parasites. Front Genet 2016;7: 154.
4. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 2015;116:116-26.
5. Chavalarias D, Wallach JD, Li AH, Ioannidis JP. Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990-2015. JAMA 2016;315:1141-8.