Enhancing Scientific Reproducibility In Biomedical Research Through Transparent Reporting

Sharing knowledge is what drives scientific progress - each new advance or innovation in biomedical research builds on previous observations. However, for experimental findings to be broadly accepted as credible by the scientific community, they must be verified by other researchers. An essential step is for researchers to report their findings in a manner that is understandable to others in the scientific community and provide sufficient information for others to validate the original results and build on them. In recent years, concern has been growing over a number of studies that have failed to replicate previous results and evidence from larger meta-analyses, which have pointed to the lack of reproducibility in biomedical research. On September 25 and 26, 2019, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a public workshop in Washington, DC, to discuss the current state of transparency in the reporting of preclinical biomedical research and to explore opportunities for harmonizing reporting guidelines across journals and funding agencies. Convened jointly by the Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; the Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders; the National Cancer Policy Forum; and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health, the workshop primarily focused on transparent reporting in preclinical research, but also considered lessons learned and best practices from clinical research reporting. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussion of the workshop.

Research in the Biomedical Sciences: Transparent and Reproducible documents the widespread concerns related to reproducibility in biomedical research and provides a best practices guide to effective and transparent hypothesis generation, experimental design, reagent standardization (including validation and authentication), statistical analysis, and data reporting. The book addresses issues in the perceived value of the existing peer review process and calls for the need for improved transparency in data reporting. It reflects new guidelines for publication that include manuscript checklists, replication/reproducibility initiatives, and the potential consequences for the biomedical research community and societal health and well-being if training, mentoring, and funding of new generations of researchers and incentives for publications are not improved. This book offers real world examples, insights, and solutions to provide a thought-provoking and timely resource for all those learning about, or engaged in, performing and supervising research across the biomedical sciences. Provides a “big picture perspective on the scope of reproducibility issues and covers initiatives that have potential as effective solutions Offers real-world research context for transparent, reproducible experimental design, execution and reporting of biomedical research with the potential to address aspects of the translational gap in drug discovery Highlights the importance of reproducibility and the necessary changes in biomedical and pharmaceutical research training and incentives to ensure sustainability

Sharing knowledge is what drives scientific progress - each new advance or innovation in biomedical research builds on previous observations. However, for experimental findings to be broadly accepted as credible by the scientific community, they must be verified by other researchers. An essential step is for researchers to report their findings in a manner that is understandable to others in the scientific community and provide sufficient information for others to validate the original results and build on them. In recent years, concern has been growing over a number of studies that have failed to replicate previous results and evidence from larger meta-analyses, which have pointed to the lack of reproducibility in biomedical research. On September 25 and 26, 2019, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a public workshop in Washington, DC, to discuss the current state of transparency in the reporting of preclinical biomedical research and to explore opportunities for harmonizing reporting guidelines across journals and funding agencies. Convened jointly by the Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; the Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders; the National Cancer Policy Forum; and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health, the workshop primarily focused on transparent reporting in preclinical research, but also considered lessons learned and best practices from clinical research reporting. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussion of the workshop.

One of the pathways by which the scientific community confirms the validity of a new scientific discovery is by repeating the research that produced it. When a scientific effort fails to independently confirm the computations or results of a previous study, some fear that it may be a symptom of a lack of rigor in science, while others argue that such an observed inconsistency can be an important precursor to new discovery. Concerns about reproducibility and replicability have been expressed in both scientific and popular media. As these concerns came to light, Congress requested that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conduct a study to assess the extent of issues related to reproducibility and replicability and to offer recommendations for improving rigor and transparency in scientific research. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science defines reproducibility and replicability and examines the factors that may lead to non-reproducibility and non-replicability in research. Unlike the typical expectation of reproducibility between two computations, expectations about replicability are more nuanced, and in some cases a lack of replicability can aid the process of scientific discovery. This report provides recommendations to researchers, academic institutions, journals, and funders on steps they can take to improve reproducibility and replicability in science.

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research is a practical guide to choosing and correctly applying the appropriate guidelines when reporting health research to ensure clear, transparent, and useful reports. This new title begins with an introduction to reporting guidelines and an overview of the importance of transparent reporting, the characteristics of good guidelines, and how to use reporting guidelines effectively in reporting health research. This hands-on manual also describes over a dozen internationally recognised published guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA and STARD in a clear and easy to understand format. It aims to help researchers choose and use the correct guidelines for reporting their research, and to produce more completely and transparently reported papers which will help to ensure reports are more useful and are not misleading. Written by the authors of health research reporting guidelines, in association with the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, Guidelines for Reporting Health Research is a helpful guide to producing publishable research. It will be a valuable resource for researchers in their role as authors and also an important reference for editors and peer reviewers.

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

This open access book, published under a CC BY 4.0 license in the Pubmed indexed book series Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, provides up-to-date information on best practice to improve experimental design and quality of research in non-clinical pharmacology and biomedicine.

Psychological Science Under Scrutiny explores a range of contemporary challenges to the assumptions and methodologies of psychology, in order to encourage debate and ground the discipline in solid science. Discusses the pointed challenges posed by critics to the field of psychological research, which have given pause to psychological researchers across a broad spectrum of sub-fields Argues that those conducting psychological research need to fundamentally change the way they think about data and results, in order to ensure that psychology has a firm basis in empirical science Places the recent challenges discussed into a broad historical and conceptual perspective, and considers their implications for the future of psychological methodology and research Challenges discussed include confirmation bias, the effects of grant pressure, false-positive findings, overestimating the efficacy of medications, and high correlations in functional brain imaging Chapters are authored by internationally recognized experts in their fields, and are written with a minimum of specialized terminology to ensure accessibility to students and lay readers