Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scholarly Publishing and Scientific Reproducibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Experimental Design and Reproducibility in Preclinical Animal Studies

Part of the book series: Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine ((LASM,volume 1))

Abstract

Poor quality of reporting in published scientific manuscripts has been identified as a major contributor to the low reproducibility of research outcomes. Improved author compliance to a journal’s submission guidelines, rigorous editorial vigilance by competent reviewers and journal editors, and revamped research practices and policies by research institutes can raise the reporting quality of submitted manuscripts. In this chapter, we describe the current requirements of scholarly publishing and the responsibilities of authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, scientific journals, and academic institutions. We propose that scientific reproducibility can be improved by (a) upgrading editorial vigilance to assure the quality and accuracy of the scientific record; (b) institutional training in writing in the sciences for research trainees; and (c) institutional adoption of existing standards of quality control in manufacturing and commercial research organizations to develop good publishing and research practices and integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Levitan KB. Scientific societies and their journals: biomedical scientists assess the relationship. Soc Stud Sci. 1979;9:393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tenopir C, King DW, Boyce P, et al. Patterns of journal use by scientists through three evolutionary phases. D-Lib Mag. 2003;9:1082.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Niu X, Hemminger BM. A study of factors that affect the information-seeking behavior of academic scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;63:336–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Volentine R, et al. Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: setting the scene for a major study. Learn Publ. 2014;27:121–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jubb M. Communication or competition: what motivates researchers to write articles for journals? Learn Publ. 2014;27:251–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? a cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15:28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Peer review in scientific publications. London: Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Byrne DW. Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: a survey of editors and peer reviewers. Science. 2000;23:39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sugimoto CR, Lariviere V, Ni C, Cronin B. Journal acceptance rates: a cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. J Informetr. 2013;7:897–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamb CR, Mai W. Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2014;56:103–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reich ES. The golden club. Nature. 2013;502:291–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Casadevall A, Fang FC. Reproducible science. Infect Immun. 2010;78:4972–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA. Reproducibility in science. Circ Res. 2015;116:116–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baker M. Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature. 2016;533:452–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fanelli D. Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;115:2628–31

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA. What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:341ps12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Barba LA. Terminologies for reproducible research. arXiv. 2018;1802 03311v1 [cs DL].

    Google Scholar 

  18. Plesser HE. Reproducibility vs. replicability: a brief history of a confused terminology. Front Neuroinform. 2018;11:76.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Drummond C. Replicability is not reproducibility: nor is it good science. In: Proceedings of the Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning Workshop at the 26th ICML. Montreal, Canada: National Research Council of Canada; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peng R. The reproducibility crisis in science: a statistical counterattack. Significance. 2015;12:30–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Loken E, Gelman A. Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science. 2017;355:584–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Munafo MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:0021.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Enserink M. Sloppy reporting on animal studies proves hard to change. Science. 2017;357:1337–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nuffield Council of Bioethics. The culture of scientific research in the UK. London: Nuffield Council of Bioethics; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Research integrity. London: Science and Technology Commitee, House of Commons; 2018

    Google Scholar 

  28. Day RA. The origins of the scientific paper: the IMRAD format. J Am Med Writ Assoc. 1989;4:16–8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sollaci LB, Pereira MG. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:364–71.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2018. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.

  31. Malicki M, Aalbersberg IJ, Bouter L, ter Riet G. Journals’ instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0222157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baker D, Lidster K, Sottomayor A, Amor S. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12:e1001756.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. McGrath JC, Lilley E. Implementing guidelines on reporting research using animals (ARRIVE etc.): new requirements for publication in BJP. Br J Pharmacol. 2015;172:3189–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Alt Lab Anim. 2010;38:167–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L. Good publication practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:461–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. Br Med J. 2014;348:g3804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bezdjian A, Klis SFL, Peters JPM, et al. Quality of reporting of otorhinolaryngology articles using animal models with the ARRIVE statement. Lab Anim. 2017;52:79–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Leung V, Rousseau-Blass F, Beauchamp G, Pang DSJ. ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0197882.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ES, et al. A randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:12.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Jamali HR, et al. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learn Publ. 2015;28:15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Ann Rev Info Sci Technol. 2011;45:197–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:S13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith R. Roger Bacon on ignorance and peer review. 2017. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/05/04/richard-smith-roger-bacon-on-ignorance-and-peer-review/.

  45. Wagner PD, Bates JHT. Maintaining the integrity of peer review. J Appl Physiol. 2016;120:479–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Black N, van RS, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Albert KM. Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:253–62.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J R Soc Med. 2014;107:384–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, et al. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20961.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. 5th ed. The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2018. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bjork BC, Welling P, Laakso M, et al. Open access to the scientific journal literature: situation 2009. PLoS One. 2010;5:e11273.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Guedj D, Ramjoue C. European Commission policy on open-access to scientific publications and research data in Horizon 2020. Biomed Data J. 2015;1:11–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schiltz M. Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate open access. PLoS Med. 2018;15:e1002663.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Horton R. The future of scientific knowledge. Lancet. 2018;392:2337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pierson DJ. The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respir Care. 2004;49:1246–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ehara S, Takahashi K. Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:W113–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Harris AHS, Reeder R, Hyun JK. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;43:1231–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Johnson C, Green B. Submitting manuscripts to biomedical journals: common errors and helpful solutions. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2009;32:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV. Manuscript rejection in ophthalmology and visual science journals: identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:864–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ali J. Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. J Young Pharm. 2010;2:3–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Harris AHS, Reeder RN, Hyun JK. Survey of editors and reviewers of high-impact psychology journals: statistical and research design problems in submitted manuscripts. J Psychol. 2011;145:195–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pimm J. Dear editor, why have you rejected my article? Psychiatrist. 2013;37:313–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Garg A, Das S, Jain H. Why we say no! A look through the editor’s eye. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:JB01–5.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Meyer HS, Durning SJ, Sklar DP, Maggio LA. Making the first cut: an analysis of academic medicine editors’ reasons for not sending manuscripts out for external peer review. Acad Med. 2018;93:464–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chew FS. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:627–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med. 2000;109:131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wijnhoven BPL, Dejong CHC. Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97:450–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Khosla A, McDonald RJ, Bornmann L, Kallmes DF. Getting to yes: the fate of neuroradiology manuscripts rejected by Radiology over a 2-year period. Radiology. 2011;260:3–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Okike K, Kocher MS, Nwachukwu BU, et al. The fate of manuscripts rejected by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2012;94:e130

    Google Scholar 

  71. Grant WD, Cone DC. If at first you don’t succeed: the fate of manuscripts rejected by Academic Emergency Medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:1213–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Docherty AB, Klein AA. The fate of manuscripts rejected from Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:427–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cronin B. Language matters. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;63:217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Wager E, Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learn Publ. 2001;14:257–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Vale RD. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:13439–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016;530:27–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. Editorial peer reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010;5:e10072.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Baethge C, Franklin J, Mertens S. Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal – a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Arzteblatt International. PLoS One. 2013;8:e61401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscienceIs agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain. 2000;123:1964–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS One. 2010;5:e14331.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Jirschitzka J, Oeberst A, Gollner R, Cress U. Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics. 2017;113:1059–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:360–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Publons. Global State of Peer Review. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0166387.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Breuning M, Backstrom J, Brannon J, et al. Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers’ work. PS: Polit Sci Polit. 2015;48:595–600.

    Google Scholar 

  86. D’Andrea R, O’Dwyer JP. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PLoS One. 2017;12:e0186111.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Gannon F. The essential role of peer review. EMBO Rep. 2001;2:743.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, et al. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One. 2011;6:e22475.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, et al. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Med. 2016;14:16.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med. 2017;15:167.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e201.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. van Lent M, Overbeke J, Out HJ. Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PLoS One. 2014;9:e104846.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489:179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Butler D. Investigating journal: the dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013;495:433–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Bert F, Paget DZ. Scaioli G. A social way to experience a scientific event: Twitter use at the 7th European Public Health Conference. Scand J Public Health. 1999;44:130–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Kiernan M, Wigglesworth N. The use of social media in the dissemination of information from scientific meetings. J Infect Prev. 2011;12:224–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Kapp JM, Hensel B, Schnoring KT. Is Twitter a forum for disseminating research to health policy makers? Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25:883–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Allen CG, Andersen B, Chambers DA, et al. Twitter use at the 2016 conference on the science of dissemination and implementation in health: analyzing #DIScience16. Implement Sci. 2018;13:34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. McClain CR. Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: becoming a “Nerd of Trust”. PLoS Biol. 2017;15:e2002020.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Science is social. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1619.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;64:2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Munafo M, Neill J. Null is beautiful: on the importance of publishing null results. J Psychopharmacol. 2016;30:585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Gaston T, Smart P. What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: a study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals. Learn Publ. 2018;31:189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Lerback J, Hanson B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature. 2017;541:455–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972;178:471–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Rogers LF. Impact factor; the numbers game. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:541–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Tsikliras AC. Chasing after the high impact. ESEP. 2008;8:45–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J. 1997;314:498–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Hecht F, Hecht BK, Sandberg AA. The journal “Impact Factor”: A misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1998;104:77–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Bertuzzi S, Drubin DG. No shortcuts for research assessment. Mol Biol Cell. 2013;24:1505–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics. 2006;69:131–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Patel VM, Ashrafian H, Bornmann L, et al. Enhancing the h index for the objective assessment of healthcare researcher performance and impact. J R Soc Med. 2013;106:19–29.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Nature. 2003;422:259–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Lawrence PA. The mismeasurement of science. Curr Biol. 2007;17:R583–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Lawrence PA. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8:9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Campbell P. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8:5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Boutron I, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:2613–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Angell M, Relman AS. Redundant publication. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:1212–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Budd JM. Stewart KN. Is there such a thing as “least publishable unit”? an empirical investigation. LIBRES 2015;25:78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Day NE. The silent majority: manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Acad Man Learn Edu. 2011;10:704–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Wager E. Coping with scientific misconduct. Br Med J. 2011;343:d6586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Brainard J. Rethinking retractions. Science. 2018;362:390–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One. 2012;7:e44118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Drubin DG, Kellogg DR. English as the universal language of science: opportunities and challenges. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23:1399.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Wicherts MJ. The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them). Animals. 2017;7:90.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. McNutt M. Journals unite for reproducibility. Science. 2014;346:679.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Cruz-Castro L, Sanz-Menendez L. Autonomy and authority in public research organisations: structure and funding factors. Minerva. 2018;56:135–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Tartari V, Perkmann M, Salter A. In good company: the influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Res Policy. 2014;43:1189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Munafo MR, Hollands GJ, Marteau TM. Open science prevents mindless science. Br Med J. 2018;363:k4309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Review of Wellcome Trust PhD research training: the supervisor perspective. London: Wellcome Trust; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Boulbes DR, Costello TJ, Baggerly KA, et al. A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:3447–55.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015;348:1422–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Wren JD, Kozak KZ, Johnson KR, et al. The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Rep. 2007;8:988–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:2557–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Laurance WF. Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature. 2006;442:26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Greene M. The demise of the lone author. Nature. 2007;450:1165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, et al. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017468

    Google Scholar 

  139. Pinto da Costa M, Oliveira J, Abdulmalik J. Where can early career researchers learn how to peer review a scientific paper? Eur Sci Editing. 2018;44:4–7, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Tokalic R, Marusic A. A peer review card exchange game. Eur Sci Editing. 2018;44:52–5.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Yosten GLC, Adams JC, Bennett CN, et al. Editorial: revised guidelines to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of research published in American Physiological Society Journals. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2018;315:R1251–R1253

    Google Scholar 

  142. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:e1002165.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Schneider K. Faking it: the case against industrial bio-test laboratories. Amicus J. 1983;Spring edition:14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Baldeshwiler AM. History of FDA good laboratory practices. Qual Assur J. 2003;7:157–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Cooper-Hannan R, Harbell JW, Coecke S, et al. The principles of good laboratory practice: application to in vitro toxicology studies. Alt Lab Anim. 1999;27:539–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Seiler JP. Good laboratory practice: the why and the how. Berlin: Springer; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Glick JL, Shamoo AE. A call for the development of “good research practices” (GRP) guidelines. Account Res. 1993;2:231–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Murray GD. Promoting good research practice. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000;9:17–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Davies R. Good research practice: it is time to do what others think we do. Quasar. 2013;124:21–3.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Pedro-Roig L, Emmerich CH. The reproducibility crisis in preclinical research – lessons to be learnt from clinical research. Med Writ. 2017;26:28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Dickersin K, Mayo-Wilson E. Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:2590–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Whitlock MC, McPeek MA, Rausher MD, et al. Data archiving. Am Nat. 2010;175:145–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Mannheimer S, Yoon A, Greenberg J, et al. A balancing act: the ideal and the realistic in developing Dryad’s preservation policy. First Monday. 2014;19

    Google Scholar 

  154. Vines TH, Albert AYK, Andrew RL, et al. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Curr Biol. 2014;24:94–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Gopen GD. Expectations: teaching writing from the reader’s perspective. London: Pearson Longman; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Eoghan McAlpine and Dr. Ze’ev Bomzon for their constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions. The authors also thank Statler and Waldorf for encouraging and inspiring us to write this chapter.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory Animals, Pardess Hanna-Karkur, Israel

    Arieh Bomzon

  2. Consulwrite Editorial Consultancy, Pardess Hanna-Karkur, Israel

    Arieh Bomzon

  3. Consulvet Consultancy in the Laboratory Animal Sciences, Pardess Hanna-Karkur, Israel

    Arieh Bomzon

  4. Harlan Teklad, Blackthorn, UK

    Graham Tobin

Authors
  1. Arieh Bomzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graham Tobin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arieh Bomzon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Comparative Medicine, Trinity College Dublin Comparative Medicine, Dublin, Ireland

    José M. Sánchez Morgado

  2. University of Bergen, Laboratory Animal Science University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Aurora Brønstad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bomzon, A., Tobin, G. (2021). Scholarly Publishing and Scientific Reproducibility. In: Sánchez Morgado, J.M., Brønstad, A. (eds) Experimental Design and Reproducibility in Preclinical Animal Studies . Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66147-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation