The research data reproducibility problem solicits a 21st century solution

Authors

  • Bhupinder Bhullar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18063/APM.2016.02.006

Keywords:

data reproducibility, scientific method

Abstract

Reproducibility is a hallmark of scientific efforts. Estimates indicate that lack of reproducibility of data ranges from 50% to 90% among published research reports. The inability to reproduce major findings of published data confounds new discoveries, and importantly, result in wastage of limited resources in the futile effort to build on these published reports. This poses a challenge to the research community to change the way we approach reproducibility by developing new tools to help progress the reliability of methods and materials we use in our trade.

References

Wikipedia, n.d., Standing on the shoulders of giants, ac-cessed June 25, 2016, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants>

Stern A M, Casadevall A, Steen R G, et al. 2014, Re-search: financial costs and personal consequences of re-search misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife, vol.3: e02956.

Ioannidis J P A, Allison D B, Ball C A, et al. 2009, Rep-eatability of published microarray gene expression anal-yses. Nature Genetics, vol.41(2): 149–155.

Prinz F, Schlange T, and Asadullah K, 2011, Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol.10(9): 712.

Begley C G and Ellis L M, 2012, Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, vol.483(7391): 531–533.

Steen R G, 2011, Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? Journal of Medical Ethics, vol.37(11): 688–692.

DeAngelis C D and Fontanarosa P B, 2009, Retraction: Cheng B-Q, et al., Chemoembolization combined with radiofrequency ablation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008; 299(14): 1669–1677. The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.301(18): 1931.

National Institutes of Health, n.d., NIH Research Training — Rigor & Reproducibility, accessed June 29, 2016, <http://www.nih.gov/science/reproducibility/training.htm>

Fang F C, Casadevall A and Morrison R P, 2011, Re-tracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, vol.79(10): 3855–3859.

The Open Data Substrate, n.d., accessed June 29, 2016, <http://open-data-standards.github.io/>

Downloads

Issue

Vol 1, Issue 2

Section

Perspective Articles

License

Authors contributing to Advances in Precision Medicine agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, that the work is not used for commercial purposes, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear.