Did a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting?

BMJ Open Science

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Macleod, Malcolm ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

BMJOS; checklist; quality improvement

Indexed keywords

EID: 85098926126     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23988703     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2017-000035     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Macleod MR, Lawson McLean A, Kyriakopoulou A, et al. Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement. PLoS Biol 2015;13:e1002273.
2. Macleod MR, van der Worp HB, Sena ES, et al. Evidence for the efficacy of NXY-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality. Stroke 2008;39:2824-9.
3. Rooke ED, Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, et al. Dopamine agonists in animal models of Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011;17:313-20.
4. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010;8:e1000412.
5. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 2012;490:187-.
6. Baker D, Lidster K, Sottomayor A, et al. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol 2014;12:e1001756.
7. Scott S, Kranz JE, Cole J, et al. Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 2008;9:4-15.
8. 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;10:712-7.
9. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012;483:531-3.
10. Anon. Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 2013:398.
11. Cramond F, Irvine C, Liao J, et al. Protocol for a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution. Scientometrics 2016;108:315-28.
12. Mogil JS, Macleod MR. No publication without confirmation. Nature 2017;542:409-11.
13. Minnerup J, Zentsch V, Schmidt A, et al. Methodological quality of experimental stroke studies published in the stroke journal: time trends and effect of the basic science checklist. Stroke 2016;47:267-72.
14. Ramirez FD, Motazedian P, Jung RG, et al. Methodological rigor in preclinical cardiovascular studies: targets to enhance reproducibility and promote research translation. Circ Res 2017;120:1916-26.
15. Macleod MR, Fisher M, O'Collins V, et al. Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench. Stroke 2009;40:e50-e52.
16. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
17. Bahor Z, Liao J, Macleod MR, et al. Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature. Clin Sci 2017;131:2525-32.
18. Blanco D, Biggane AM, Cobo E, et al. Are CONSORT checklists submitted by authors adequately reflecting what information is actually reported in published papers? Trials 2018;19:80.