A Survey on Data Reproducibility and the Effect of Publication Process on the Ethical Reporting of Laboratory Research

The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could be reproduced only 11% to 45% of the time. Multiple surveys attemp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical cancer research 2018-07, Vol.24 (14), p.3447-3455
Hauptverfasser: Boulbes, Delphine R, Costello, Tracy, Baggerly, Keith, Fan, Fan, Wang, Rui, Bhattacharya, Rajat, Ye, Xiangcang, Ellis, Lee M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could be reproduced only 11% to 45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes of data irreproducibility and underscored potential solutions, more robust experimental designs, better statistics, and better mentorship. However, no prior survey has addressed the role of the review and publication process on honest reporting. We developed an anonymous online survey intended for trainees involved in bench research. The survey included questions related to mentoring/career development, research practice, integrity, and transparency, and how the pressure to publish and the publication process itself influence their reporting practices. Responses to questions related to mentoring and training practices were largely positive, although an average of approximately 25% did not seem to receive optimal mentoring. A total of 39.2% revealed having been pressured by a principle investigator or collaborator to produce "positive" data. About 62.8% admitted that the pressure to publish influences the way they report data. The majority of respondents did not believe that extensive revisions significantly improved the manuscript while adding to the cost and time invested. This survey indicates that trainees believe that the pressure to publish affects honest reporting, mostly emanating from our system of rewards and advancement. The publication process itself affects faculty and trainees and appears to influence a shift in their ethics from honest reporting ("negative data") to selective reporting, data falsification, or even fabrication. .
ISSN:1078-0432
1557-3265
DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227