scholarly journals Reproducibility2020: Progress and Priorities

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Freedman ◽  
Gautham Venugopalan ◽  
Rosann Wisman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Idea Generation ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Standards And Guidelines

ABSTRACTThe 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. 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.

scholarly journals Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Freedman ◽  
Gautham Venugopalan ◽  
Rosann Wisman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Idea Generation ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Standards And Guidelines

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.

scholarly journals Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science

FACETS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 403-423
Author(s):  
Timothy Caulfield ◽  
Tania Bubela ◽  
Jonathan Kimmelman ◽  
Vardit Ravitsky
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Communities ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Bad Data

COVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted, and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with 10 recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media, and the research communities.

scholarly journals Let’s Do Better: Public Representations of COVID-19 Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
AISDL
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Communities ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Bad Data

COVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with ten recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media and the research communities.

scholarly journals Lost in Translation - Bridging the preclinical and clinical worlds concepts, Examples, Successes, and Failures in Translational Medicine

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila A Seyhan
Keyword(s):  
Drug Development ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Human Studies ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Drug Development Process ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Attrition Rates ◽  
Research Findings

The biopharmaceutical companies involved in developing drugs for human diseases are facing considerable challenges, both politically and fiscally. There is growing pressure from the general public, funding agencies, and the policymakers for scientists and industry to improve drug development process, better bridge basic and translational human studies, and ultimately improve the process of the development of more effective, safer, and less costly drugs.The crisis involving the scale of the reproducibility and translatability of preclinical research to human studies and high attrition rate of drug development process is widely recognized both in academia and industry. Despite all this, the high attrition rates of drug development and the magnitude of the reproducibility and translatability problems with the preclinical research findings to human studies remain a fact.Recent reports in literature also suggest that many published research findings in preclinical research are misleading, not as robust as they claim, or cannot be reproduced and hence cannot be translated to human studies. The reasons are complex and challenging. Potential culprits range from the complexity of modern biomedical research to the limitations of tools, the trivial methodological differences, to poor experimental designs, inappropriate data analysis, misuse of statistics, the poor predictability of animal results in humans, as well as training and perverse incentives in academia.There are many reports suggesting solutions to overcome these roadblocks in biomedical research. However, how scientists, researchers, and the biopharmaceutical industry deal with this problem depends on the understanding of the root causes of the problem and the strategies and approaches to solving this problem to improve biomedical research.The purpose of this article is to conduct a thorough literature review to evaluate the nature of some of the problems leading to high attrition rates of drug development and to provide some suggestion to overcome the obstacles that impede the drug development process.

scholarly journals The Two Faces of Open Access

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 193-194
Author(s):  
Peter Black
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
New Research ◽  
Global World ◽  
Published Research

The two faces of open access remain a point of contention in the global world of scientific publishing, and this carries over into the microcosm of urologic publishing. Many of us are part of the research community and all of us are consumers of new research findings. On both sides of the research enterprise—as providers and consumers—our interests are best met by broad dissemination and universal access to all published research. These are the underlying objectives of open access publishing.

The Role of the Librarian in the Research Life Cycle

2020 ◽  
pp. 335-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josiline Phiri Chigwada
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Support Services ◽  
Idea Generation ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Impact

This chapter documents the role that is played by the librarians in the research life cycle and how they collaborate with researchers. Initially, librarians were regarded as service people who provide research support services during the research process. A literature review was done to unpack how this role was affected by the digital technologies and examine the partnering role that is now being displayed by librarians. It was noted that although there are some challenges that are encountered, researchers are collaborating with librarians from idea generation to the dissemination of research findings and evaluating the impact of the research. It was recommended that librarians should move along with these changes and should continuously develop themselves so that they are aware of the services that they are supposed to provide during the research process.

scholarly journals Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research

eLife ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Yarborough ◽  
Robert Nadon ◽  
David G Karlin
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Erroneous Beliefs

A range of problems currently undermines public trust in biomedical research. We discuss four erroneous beliefs that may prevent the biomedical research community from recognizing the need to focus on deserving this trust, and thus which act as powerful barriers to necessary improvements in the research process.

Open Access, Education Research, and Discovery

2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (10) ◽  
pp. 2623-2648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Furlough
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Primary Methods ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Potential Damage ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Attitudes And Behavior

Background/Context The open access movement has successfully drawn attention to economic and political aspects of scholarly communication through a significant body of commentary that debates the merits of open access and the potential damage it may do to scholarly publishing. Researchers within the field of education research, notably John Willinsky, have discussed the value and potential benefits of open access to fulfill the research mission and to improve the visibility of the field. There are now thousands of open access publications or content aggregators online. Researchers have adopted open access to varying degrees, but not as rapidly as proponents have hoped, while readers using traditional discovery services are less likely to encounter open access materials in their research than they are traditionally published scholarship. Purpose This article examines the opportunities that are available for researchers to adopt open access distribution and the factors that may impede their adoption. I synthesize recent studies of researchers’ attitudes toward, and understanding of, open access and examine the extent to which influential education research journals permit it. I focus on one of the primary methods of adopting open access—archiving versions of articles in open repository services—and demonstrate how that model can contribute to decontextualizing of research findings during discovery. Research Design This article is based primarily on a literature review and analysis, but also builds on an investigation of publisher policies through publicly accessible Web sites. Conclusions and Recommendations First, the success of the movement, and the ease with which data can be readily shared by anyone with net access, has contributed to an increasing expectation of “openness” and will change how research is conducted, shared, and authorized. Second, more research is needed on the attitudes and behavior of researchers in specific fields, especially education researchers, to understand how open access can support their needs as authors. Third, that understanding should be deployed to design services that can help close gaps in the research process. Openness should be adopted as a value in these services, not an end in itself.

scholarly journals LOGICAL-INFORMATION MODEL OF EVALUATION THE IMPACT OF TARGETED THERAPy DRUGS ON THE BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITy OF CANCER CELLS

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
V. V. Burlyaev ◽  
А. Davydenko ◽  
V. F. Kornyushko ◽  
L. I. Russu ◽  
M. Mezentseva
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Information Model ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Information Support ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Functional Modeling ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Modeling Technology ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Logical Information

The paper deals with laboratory preclinical studies of the impact of targeted anticancer drugs on the life of A-549 cell cultures of the cancer origin (lung carcinoma). Preclinical studies enable evaluating the effectiveness of targeted therapy drugs, possible contraindications and side effects in order to determine in future the scope of clinical trials and the possibility of performing them. It is proposed to develop information support of preclinical research. In this work the use of functional modeling technology for building a logic-information model in the category of IDEF0 is considered. For detailed elaboration of the model it is necessary to review step-by-step the whole research process. The necessity of creating the information support is connected to the tasks of structuring, storage and processing large amounts of experimental data.

scholarly journals Let’s Do Better: Public Representations of COVID-19 Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
AISDL
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Communities ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Bad Data

COVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with ten recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media and the research communities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document