8 research outputs found
On the Reproducibility of Science: Unique Identification of Research Resources in the Biomedical Literature
Get PDFScientific reproducibility has been at the forefront of many news stories and there exist numerous initiatives to help address this problem. We posit that a contributor is simply a lack of specificity that is required to enable adequate research reproducibility. In particular, the inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even where the science is otherwise sound. In order to better understand the magnitude of this problem, we designed an experiment to ascertain the “identifiability” of research resources in the biomedical literature. We evaluated recent journal articles in the fields of Neuroscience, Developmental Biology, Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology and General Biology, selected randomly based on a diversity of impact factors for the journals, publishers, and experimental method reporting guidelines. We attempted to uniquely identify model organisms (mouse, rat, zebrafish, worm, fly and yeast), antibodies, knockdown reagents (morpholinos or RNAi), constructs, and cell lines. Specific criteria were developed to determine if a resource was uniquely identifiable, and included examining relevant repositories (such as model organism databases, and the Antibody Registry), as well as vendor sites. The results of this experiment show that 54% of resources are not uniquely identifiable in publications, regardless of domain, journal impact factor, or reporting requirements. For example, in many cases the organism strain in which the experiment was performed or antibody that was used could not be identified. Our results show that identifiability is a serious problem for reproducibility. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to authors, reviewers, journal editors, vendors, and publishers. Scientific efficiency and reproducibility depend upon a research-wide improvement of this substantial problem in science today
Heart Failure in the Twenty-First Century: Is it a Coronary Artery Disease or Hypertension Problem?
No full textSpiritual/Religious Experiences and In-Treatment Outcome in an Inner-City Program for Heroin and Cocaine Dependence
No full text
ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (revision of the 1993 PTCA guidelines)31This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees in April 2001 and by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in March 2001.32When citing this document, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association would appreciate the following citation format: Smith SC, Jr, Dove JT, Jacobs AK, Kennedy JW, Kereiakes D, Kern MJ, Kuntz RE, Popma JJ, Schaff HV, Williams DO. ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1993 Guidelines for Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:2239i–lxvi.33This document is available on the ACC Web site at www.acc.organd the AHA Web site at www.americanheart.org(ask for reprint no. 71-0206). To obtain a reprint of the shorter version (executive summary and summary of recommendations) to be published in the June 15, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and the June 19, 2001 issue of Circulation for $5 each, call 800-253-4636 (US only) or write the American College of Cardiology, Educational Services, 9111 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, MD 20814-1699. To purchase additional reprints up to 999 copies, call 800-611-6083 (US only) or fax 413-665-2671; 1,000 or more copies, call 214-706-1466, fax 214-691-6342, or E-mail: [email protected](ask for reprint no. 71-0205).
No full text
