Many Journal Articles Not Reproducible, Transparent: Researchers

Share
Some seven academic and government researchers in the U.S. say that despite a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest, most studies they reviewed failed to meet these criteria. Writing in the open-access journal PLOS Biology, the authors say they reviewed a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000-2014.

“Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available,” they report. “Replication studies were rare (just 4) and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest…. Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding.”

The article expresses the hope that the survey will further sensitize scientists, funders, journals, and other stakeholders in science to the need to improve the indicators. “There are several efforts to improve reproducibility,” the authors conclude. “By continuing to monitor these indicators in the future, it is possible to track any evidence of improvement in the design, conduct, analysis, funding, and independence of biomedical research over time.”

Read more