Check for publication integrity before misconduct

Grey, Andrew; Bolland, Mark J; Avenell, Alison; Klein, A. A.; Gunsalus, C. K.

doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03959-6

Cited by 77 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even in the absence of errors or fraud, researchers’ own confirmation bias may impact the reproducibility of their findings 5 . In response to mounting concerns, interest in methods to improve transparency and reproducibility in research has skyrocketed: researchers across disciplines have published recommended practices to improve reproducibility 6 – 11 and detect lapses in publication integrity 12 . In addition, certain funders have announced grant review criteria for rigor and reproducibility and dedicated funding for replication studies 9 , 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal replication of computational workflows in scientific research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failures to reproduce research findings across scientific disciplines from psychology to physics have garnered increasing attention in recent years. External replication of published findings by outside investigators has emerged as a method to detect errors and bias in the published literature. However, some studies influence policy and practice before external replication efforts can confirm or challenge the original contributions. Uncovering and resolving errors before publication would increase the efficiency of the scientific process by increasing the accuracy of published evidence. Here we summarize the rationale and best practices for internal replication, a process in which multiple independent data analysts replicate an analysis and correct errors prior to publication. We explain how internal replication should reduce errors and bias that arise during data analyses and argue that it will be most effective when coupled with pre-specified hypotheses and analysis plans and performed with data analysts masked to experimental group assignments. By improving the reproducibility of published evidence, internal replication should contribute to more rapid scientific advances.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal replication of computational workflows in scientific research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would improve the awareness and understanding of particular error types, which could encourage more journals to proactively investigate publications and submitted manuscripts for repeated errors such as wrongly identified nucleotide reagents. We propose a draft template (Table 4) that could align with and extend the "REAPPRAISED" checklist for publication integrity (Grey et al 2020b). We welcome input from different stakeholders to ensure that this template is broadly useful and widely adopted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Byrne¹,

Park²,

West³

et al. 2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The capacity of the scientific literature to self-correct is of vital importance, but few studies have compared post-publication journal responses to specific error types. We have compared journal responses to a specific reagent error in 31 human gene knockdown publications, namely a non-targeting or negative control nucleotide sequence that is instead predicted to target a human gene. The 31 papers published by 13 biomedical journals generated 26 published responses (14 retractions, 5 expressions of concern, 7 author corrections which included one resolved expression of concern) as well as 6 stated decisions to take no action. Variations in published responses were noted both between journals and by 4 journals that published different responses to at least 2 papers. A subset of published responses revealed conflicting explanations for the wrongly identified control reagent, despite 30/31 papers obtaining their gene knockdown reagents from the same external supplier. Viewed collectively, different journal responses to human gene knockdown publications with a common reagent error type suggest that editorial staff require more support to interpret post-publication notifications of incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents. We propose a draft template to facilitate the communication, interpretation and investigation of published errors, including errors affecting research reagents.

show abstract

“…106 We also wish to highlight the ever-growing concerns related to the (un)trustworthiness of the published evidence. 107 Methodologically weak and sometimes even fabricated studies should not be given false credibility by including them in a 'tsunami' of various meta-analyses of equally dubious quality. We must call for more stringent assessments of trustworthiness, including a formal assessment of study protocols, data feasibility and, in particular, completeness of individual patient data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also wish to highlight the ever‐growing concerns related to the (un)trustworthiness of the published evidence 107 . Methodologically weak and sometimes even fabricated studies should not be given false credibility by including them in a ‘tsunami’ of various meta‐analyses of equally dubious quality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversies in the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic women: an evidence summary and expert opinion

Goodfellow

Care

Alfirević

2020

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preterm birth prevention is multifaceted and produces many nuanced questions. This review addresses six 'important clinical questions' about preterm birth prevention as voted for by members of the UK Preterm Clinical Network. The questions cover the areas of: preterm birth prevention in 'low-risk' populations; screening for asymptomatic genital tract infection in women at high-risk of preterm birth; cervical length screening with cerclage or vaginal pessary in situ; cervical shortening whilst using progesterone; use of vaginal progesterone in combination with cervical cerclage; and optimal advice about intercourse for women at high-risk of preterm birth.

show abstract

Check for publication integrity before misconduct

Cited by 77 publications

References 11 publications

Internal replication of computational workflows in scientific research

Internal replication of computational workflows in scientific research

The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Controversies in the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic women: an evidence summary and expert opinion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About