References
- Arrowsmith, J. 2011. Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008-2010. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10 (5):328–29. doi:10.1038/nrd3439.
- Baker, M. (2015). The reproducibility crisis is good for science. Slate, April 15, 2015. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/04/the_reproducibility_crisis_is_good_for_science.html ( accessed May 31, 2016).
- Beall, J. 2016. Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science 31 (10):1511–13. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511.
- Begley, C. G., and J. P. Ioannidis. 2015. Reproducibility in science: Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Research 116 (1):116–26. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819.
- Buck, S. 2015. Solving reproducibility. Science 348 (6242):1403. doi:10.1126/science.aac8041.
- Casadevall, A., R. G. Steen, and F. C. Fang. 2014. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. The FASEB Journal 28 (9):3847–55. doi:10.1096/fj.14-256735.
- Clark, J., and R. Smith. 2015. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ 350:h210. doi:10.1136/bmj.h210.
- Collins, F. S., and L. A. Tabak. 2014. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505 (7485):612–13. doi:10.1038/505612a.
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (2009). Retraction guidelines. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf ( accessed June 21, 2016).
- Cyranoski, D. 2015. Collateral damage: How one misconduct case brought a biology institute to its knees. Nature 520 (7549):600–03. doi:10.1038/520600a.
- Elliott, K. C., and D. B. Resnik. 2015. Scientific reproducibility, human error, and public policy. Bioscience 65 (1):5–6. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu197.
- Fanelli, D., and T. Tregenza. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4 (5):e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
- Fang, F. C., R. G. Steen, and A. Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109 (42):17028–33. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
- Firestein, S. (2016). Why failure to replicate findings can actually be good for science. LA Times, February 14, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0214-firestein-science-replication-failure-20160214-story.html ( accessed September 4, 2016).
- Gottmann, E., S. Kramer, B. Pfahringer, and C. Helma. 2001. Data quality in predictive toxicology: Reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (5):509–14.
- Horton, R. 2015. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet 385:1380.
- Ioannidis, J. P. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:696–701.
- Kilkenny, C., N. Parsons, E. Kadyszewski, M. F. Festing, I. C. Cuthill, D. Fry, J. Hutton, and D. G. Altman. 2009. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 4 (11):e7824.
- Kornfeld, D. S., and S. L. Titus. 2016. Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature 537 (7618):29–30.
- Landis, S. C., S. G. Amara, A. K, C. P. Austin, R. Blumenstein, E. W. Bradley, R. G. Crystal, R. B. Darnell, R. J. Ferrante, F. H, F. R, F. M, H. E. Gendelman, R. M. Golub, J. L. Goudreau, R. A. Gross, A. K. Gubitz, S. E. Hesterlee, D. W. Howells, H. J, K. Kelner, K. W, K. D, S. E. Lazic, M. S. Levine, M. R. Macleod, J. M. McCall, R. T. Moxley 3rd, K. Narasimhan, L. J. Noble, S. Perrin, J. D. Porter, O. Steward, E. Unger, U. Utz, and S. D. Silberberg. 2012. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490 (7419):187–91.
- McNutt, M. 2014. Reproducibility. Science 343 (6168):229.
- Morgan, R. L., K. A. Thayer, L. Bero, N. Bruce, Y. Falck-Ytter, D. Ghersi, G. Guyatt, C. Hooijmans, M. Langendam, D. Mandrioli, R. A. Mustafa, E. A. Rehfuess, A. A. Rooney, B. Shea, E. K. Silbergeld, P. Sutton, M. S. Wolfe, T. J. Woodruff, J. H. Verbeek, A. C. Holloway, N. Santesso, and H. J. Schünemann. 2016. GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health. Environment International 92–93:611–16.
- National Institutes of Health. (2015). Clearinghouse for training modules to enhance data reproducibility. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/pages/clearinghouse-for-training-modules-to-enhance-data-reproducibility.aspx ( accessed June 21, 2016).
- National Institutes of Health. (2016). Rigor and Reproducibility. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/rigor-reproducibility ( accessed May 30, 2016).
- Nature. 2014a. Journals unite for reproducibility. Nature 515 (7525):7.
- Nature. 2014b. Code share. Nature 514 (7524):536.
- Nature. 2015. Let’s think about cognitive bias. Nature 526 (7572):163.
- Nature. 2016. Reality check on reproducibility. Nature 533 (7604):437.
- Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Psychology. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 (6251):aac4716.
- Popper, K. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London, UK: Routledge.
- Prinz, F., T. Schlange, and K. Asadullah. 2011. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10 (9):712.
- Pusztai, L., C. Hatzis, and F. Andre. 2013. Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: Problems and solutions. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 10 (12):720–24.
- Retraction Watch. (2016). http://retractionwatch.com/ ( accessed September 5, 2016).
- Rooney, A. A., G. S. Cooper, G. D. Jahnke, J. Lam, R. L. Morgan, A. L. Boyles, J. M. Ratcliffe, A. D. Kraft, H. J. Schünemann, P. Schwingl, T. D. Walker, K. A. Thayer, and R. M. Lunn. 2016. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environment International 92–93:617–29.
- Schreier, A. A., K. Wilson, and D. Resnik. 2006. Academic research record-keeping: Best practices for individuals, group leaders, and institutions. Academic Medicine 81 (1):42–47.
- Shamoo, A. E. 2013. Data audit as a way to prevent/contain misconduct. Accountability in Research 20 (5–6):369–79.
- Shamoo, A. E. 2016. Audit of research data. Accountability in Research 23 (1):1–3.
- Shamoo, A. E., and D. B. Resnik. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Sorge, R. E., L. J. Martin, K. A. Isbester, S. G. Sotocinal, S. Rosen, A. H. Tuttle, J. S. Wieskopf, E. L. Acland, A. Dokova, B. Kadoura, P. Leger, J. C. Mapplebeck, M. McPhail, A. Delaney, G. Wigerblad, A. P. Schumann, T. Quinn, J. Frasnelli, C. I. Svensson, W. F. Sternberg, and J. S. Mogil. 2014. Olfactory exposure to males, including men, causes stress and related analgesia in rodents. Nature Methods 11 (6):629–32.
- The Economist. (2013). Trouble at the lab. October 19, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble ( accessed May 31, 2016).
- The Science Exchange Network. (2014). Reproducibility initiative. http://validation.scienceexchange.com/#/reproducibility-initiative ( accessed September 5, 2016).
- Titus, S. L., J. A. Wells, and L. J. Rhoades. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453 (7198):980–82.
- World Conferences on Research Integrity. (2016). Background. http://www.researchintegrity.org/ ( accessed November 16, 2016).