No raw data, no science: Another possible source of the reproducibility crisis

Molecular Brain

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2020, Pages

  Miyakawa, Tsuyoshi ^a  

^a FUJITA HEALTH UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Data fabrication; Misconduct; Open data; Open science; Raw data; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; EDITOR; HUMAN; INFORMATION STORAGE; MISCONDUCT; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; TRUST; DATA ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; SCIENCE;

DATA ANALYSIS; PUBLICATIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENCE;

EID: 85079772936     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17566606     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. 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(9):712.
2. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531-3.
3. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716.
4. Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2(3):196-217.
5. Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The extent and consequences of P-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(3):e1002106.
6. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication Bias and outcome reporting Bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.
7. Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, Aretouli E, Evangelou E, Howells DW, et al. Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(7):e1001609.
8. Ioannidis JPA. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.
9. Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News. 2016;533(7604):452.
10. Promoting research data sharing at Springer Nature: Of Schemes and Memes Blog. Available from: http://blogs.nature.com/ofschemesandmemes/2016/07/05/promoting-research-data-sharing-at-springer-nature. Cited 5 Nov 2019.
11. Cell Press STAR∗Methods. Available from: https://www.cell.com/star-authors-guide. Cited 5 Nov 2019.
12. PLOS' new data policy: public access to data | EveryONE Blog. 2014. Available from: https://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2014/02/24/plos-new-data-policy-public-access-data-2/. Cited 2019 Nov 5.
13. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738.
14. Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. The Prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio. 2016;7(3):e00809-16.
15. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun. 2011;79(10):3855-9.
16. Asendorpf JB, Conner M, Fruyt FD, Houwer JD, Denissen JJA, Fiedler K, et al. Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. Eur J Personal. 2013;27(2):108-19.
17. Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA. Reproducibility in science. Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116-26.