The reproducibility crisis and academic libraries

College and Research Libraries

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 2-9

  Sayre, Franklin ^a   Riegelman, Amy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85040713695     PISSN: 00100870     EISSN: 21506701     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5860/crl.79.1.2     Document Type: Editorial

References (36)

1. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” Science 349 (2015).
2. Keith A. Baggerly and Kevin R. Coombes, “Deriving Chemosensitivity from Cell Lines: Forensic Bioinformatics and Reproducible Research in High-Throughput Biology,” Annals of Applied Statistics 3 (2009).
3. John P.A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLoS Medicine 2 (2005)
4. Iain Chalmers et al., “How to Increase Value and Reduce Waste When Research Priorities Are Set,” Lancet 383 (2014).
5. Rick O. Gilmore et al., “Progress toward Openness, Transparency, and Reproducibility in Cognitive Neuroscience,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1396 (2017).
6. C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis, “Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research,” Nature 483 (2012).
7. Bruce C. Gibb, “Reproducibility,” Nature Chemistry 6 (2014).
8. Rasmus E. Benestad et al., “Learning from Mistakes in Climate Research,” Theoretical and Applied Climatology 126 (2016).
9. Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin, “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper Series (2013).
10. Matthew C. Makel and Jonathan A. Plucker, “Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences,” Educational Researcher 43 (2014).
11. Leonard P. Freedman, Iain M. Cockburn, and Timothy S. Simcoe, “The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research,” PLoS Biology 13 (2015).
12. Open Science Collaboration, “An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (2012).
13. Benedict Carey, “Psychology’s Fears Confirmed: Rechecked Studies Don’t Hold Up,” in New York Times (2015)
14. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” e124.
15. A.J. Wakefield et al., “Retracted: Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children,” Lancet 351, no. 9103 (1998)
16. M.J. LaCour and D.P. Green, “Political Science. When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality,” Science 346, no. 6215 (2014).
17. D.R. Carney, A.J. Cuddy, and A.J. Yap, “Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance,” Psychological Science 21, no. 10 (2010)
18. Amy Cuddy, “Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are,” TED (2012).
19. Susan Dominus, “When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy,” New York Times, October 18, 2017
20. Andrew Gelman and Kaiser Fung, “Amy Cuddy’s Power Pose Research Is the Latest Example of Scientific Overreach,” in Slate, January 19, 2016.
21. Monya Baker, “Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?” Nature 533 (2016).
22. Steven N. Goodman, Daniele Fanelli, and John P.A. Ioannidis, “What Does Research Reproducibility Mean?” Science Translational Medicine 8, no. (2016): 1.
23. Prasad Patil, Roger D. Peng, and Jeffrey T. Leek, “A Statistical Definition for Reproducibility and Replicability,” BioRxiV, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/29/066803 [accessed September 13, 2017].
24. Kenneth Bollen et al., “Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Perspectives on Robust and Reliable Science” (paper presented at the Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 2015), 3.
25. Jeffrey T. Leek and Leah R. Jager, “Is Most Published Research Really False?” Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 4 (2017): 111.
26. Karl Broman et al., “Recommendations to Funding Agencies for Supporting Reproducible Research” (paper presented at the American Statistical Association, 2017), 2.
27. B.A. Nosek et al., “Promoting an Open Research Culture,” Science 348, no. 6242 (2015).
28. Broman L et al., “Recommendations to Funding Agencies for Supporting Reproducible Research,” 3–4.
29. NIH, “Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research,” National Institute of Health (2014).
30. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, “Enhancing Research Reproducibility: Recommendations from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,” http://faseb.org/Science-Policy--Advocacy-and-Communications/Science-Policy-and-Research-Issues/Research-Reproducibility.aspx [accessed May 25, 2017].
31. Society for Neuroscience, “Research Practices for Scientific Rigor: A Resource for Discussion, Training, and Practice,” http://www.sfn.org/advocacy/policy-positions/research-practices-for-scientific-rigor [accessed September 13, 2017].
32. C. Glenn Begley, Alastair M Buchan, and Ulrich Dirnagl, “Robust Research: Institutions Must Do Their Part for Reproducibility,” Nature 525 (2015): 27.
33. Victoria Stodden et al., “Setting the Default to Reproducible Reproducibility in Computational and Experimental Mathematics,” (2013), http://stodden.net/icerm_report.pdf [accessed July 26, 2017].
34. Vicky Steeves, “Reproducibility Librarianship,” Collaborative Librarianship 9 (2017).
35. Melissa L. Rethlefsen, Mellanye Lackey, and Shirley Zhao, “Building Capacity to Encourage Research Reproducibility and #Makeresearchtrue,” Journal of the Medical Library Association (forthcoming article).
36. Jon Jeffryes, “Improving Research through Reproducibility,” in Continuum (2017), https://www.continuum.umn.edu/2017/05/improving-research-reproducibility/ [accessed August 11, 2017].