New forms of checks and balances are needed to improve research integrity

Recent attempts at replicating highly-cited peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that the “reproducibility crisis” is indeed upon us. However, punitive measures against individuals committing research misconduct are neither sufficient nor useful because this is a systemic issue stemming from a lack of positive incentive. As an alternative approach, here we propose a system of checks and balances for the publishing process that involves 1) technical review of methodology by publishers, and 2) incentivizing direct replication of key experimental results. Together, these actions will help restore the self-correcting nature of scientific discovery.

• Publication year

  2014

• Venue

  F1000Research

• Publication date

  2014-05-28

• Fields of study

  Medicine, Computer Science, Psychology

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.12688/f1000research.3714.1PMID 25324963PMCID 4197740
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• U.S. science policy. Bill would set new rules for choosing NSF grants.

  2013cited by this paper
• Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

  2012cited by this paper
• Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?

  2011cited by this paper
• Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view

  2011cited by this paper
• Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS

  2008cited by this paper
• Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity.

  2008cited by this paper
• Claims of sex differences: an empirical assessment in genetic associations.

  2007cited by this paper

• There’s No “I” in “Team”: Recommendations for Effective Teamwork and Communication in IONM

  2024cites this paper
• Practicing What is Preached: Exploring Reproducibility Compliance of Papers on Reproducible Research

  2022cites this paper
• Psychology Exceptionalism and the Multiple Discovery of the Replication Crisis

  2021influential citation
• Reproducibility literature analysis - a federal information professional perspective

  2020cites this paper
• Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study

  2020cites this paper
• Reproducibility Issues: Avoiding Pitfalls in Animal Inflammation Models.

  2017cites this paper
• Supporting evidence-based analysis for modified risk tobacco products through a toxicology data-sharing infrastructure

  2017cites this paper
• Between-Subject Variability in Healthy Eyes as a Primary Source of Structural–Functional Discordance in Patients With Glaucoma

  2016cites this paper
• The open science peer review oath.

  2014cites this paper
• An Open Science Peer Review Oath

  2014cites this paper