Reproducibility of Scientific Data

Shakeri, Raheleh

Reproducibility of Scientific Data

Document Type : Promotion Article

Author

Raheleh Shakeri

University of Kurdistan, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Department of Biological Sciences

Abstract

Science has always tried to produce knowledge that is useful for mankind. Transparency, open access, and reproducibility are the main characteristics of science. Scientific findings are published in journal articles to promote awareness and allow other researchers to use them. Although the methods and results are explained in the articles, some presented data are not being reproducible due to various factors such as selective reporting, insufficient replication, a pressure to publish, poor mentoring and fraud. In recent years, researchers, the pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies have been concerned with this problem. These concerns have led to consider the new policies for review and publication process of papers. The practical solutions to increase reproducibility and data validation are preregistration of studies and analysis plans, creating archive databases and independent reproduction of the experiments and analysis via other scientific centers. The science should be reproducible if not that is not in the field of experimental science. The increase in reproducibility of data is required to collaboration among research institutes, researchers, funding agencies and publishers. The committee, known as TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion), has developed the standards in order to increase the scientific data validation, if they are considered, they will greatly enhance the reproducibility.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2008935.1397.09.1.3.8

References

[1] Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News, 533(7604), 452.
[2] Begley, C. G., Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531.
[3] Collins, F. S., Tabak, L. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612-613.
[4] Eisner, D. A. (2018). Reproducibility of science: Fraud, impact factors and carelessness. Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology, 114, 364-368.
[5] Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124.
[6] Han, H. J., Russo, J., Kohwi, Y., Kohwi-Shigematsu, T. (2008). SATB1 reprogrammes gene expression to promote breast tumour growth and metastasis. Nature, 452(7184), 187.
[7] Iorns, E., Hnatyszyn, H. J., Seo, P., Clarke, J., Ward, T., Lippman, M. (2010). The role of SATB1 in breast cancer pathogenesis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102(16), 1284-1296.
[8] Fanelli, D. (2018). Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2628-2631.
[9] Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, 25.
[10] Berg, J. (2018). Progress on reproducibility. Science, Vol. 359( 6371), p. 9.
[11] Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen. G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., Ishiyama, J., Karlan, D., Kraut, A., Lupia, A., Mabry, P., Madon, T., Malhotra, N., Mayo-Wilson, E., McNutt, M., Miguel, E., Levy Paluck, E., Simonsohn, U., Soderberg, C., Spellman, B. A., Turitto, J., VandenBos, G., Vazire, S., Wagenmakers, E. J., Wilson, R., Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422-1425.
[12] Leeper, T. J. (2014). Archiving Reproducible Research with R and Dataverse. R Journal, 6(1).