Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities.
Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities.
复制标题
DOI：
10.12688/f1000research.11334.1
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wisman R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Freedman LP;Venugopalan G;Wisman R
临床前研究过程是一个想法产生、实验和结果报告的循环。生物医学研究界依靠已发表发现的重现性来创建新的研究路线，并将研究结果转化为治疗应用。2012年，来自安进的科学家报告称，他们只能复制53项具有里程碑意义的临床前研究中的6项，自那以来，生物医学研究界开始讨论可重复性问题的规模，并制定应对关键挑战的举措。2013年，全球生物标准研究所(GBSI)发布了《标准案例》，这是首批全面报告之一，旨在解决人们对不可再生生物医学研究日益增长的担忧。有人提请进一步注意限制科学自我纠正的问题，包括报告和出版偏见、研究力度不足、缺乏方法和数据的开放获取以及在试剂验证等领域缺乏明确界定的标准和准则。为了评估自2013年以来在可再生性方面取得的进展，GBSI确定并审查了旨在提高质量和可再生性的举措。通过这一过程，我们确定了资助者、期刊、研究人员和其他利益攸关方的关键角色，并为未来的进展建议了行动。本文描述了我们的发现和结论。
The preclinical research process is a cycle of idea generation, experimentation, and reporting of results. The biomedical research community relies on the reproducibility of published discoveries to create new lines of research and to translate research findings into therapeutic applications. Since 2012, when scientists from Amgen reported that they were able to reproduce only 6 of 53 “landmark” preclinical studies, the biomedical research community began discussing the scale of the reproducibility problem and developing initiatives to address critical challenges. Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) released the “Case for Standards” in 2013, one of the first comprehensive reports to address the rising concern of irreproducible biomedical research. Further attention was drawn to issues that limit scientific self-correction, including reporting and publication bias, underpowered studies, lack of open access to methods and data, and lack of clearly defined standards and guidelines in areas such as reagent validation. To evaluate the progress made towards reproducibility since 2013, GBSI identified and examined initiatives designed to advance quality and reproducibility. Through this process, we identified key roles for funders, journals, researchers and other stakeholders and recommended actions for future progress. This paper describes our findings and conclusions.