Year: 2016
Type: editorial
Abstract: The scientific examination of how research is designed, carried out, communicated, and evaluated determines how much confidence we can have in the insights that ultimately arise from it.This understanding underlies our decision to expand the scope of the research section of PLOS Biology to include meta-research articles.It has become increasingly apparent that the failure to reproduce results is a significant problem across the biomedical sciences.In a seminal article, Ioannidis used simulations to demonstrate that, given current research practices, research claims are more likely to be false than true [1].A recent effort to replicate 100 psychology studies found that only 39% could be replicated, with replication effects overall having half the magnitude of original effects [2].Chalmers and Glasziou estimated that approximately 85% of research investment in the biomedical sciences-or US$200 billion of the worldwide investment in 2010 -is wasted [3].Freedman and colleagues estimated that over 50% of preclinical research can't be replicated, placing the approximate annual cost of irreproducibility in the US alone at US$28 billion [4].Unsurprisingly, drug discovery has slowed and its costs have risen, as preclinical interventions in animal models are rarely recapitulated in clinical trials [5].Trust in the scientific enterprise has been seriously undermined, and this has not been helped in recent years by numerous retractions (see Retraction Watch for reporting [6]).There is an urgent need to address this credibility crisis and improve the standards of research practices.The emerging field of meta-research aims to characterize existing standards and identify improved practices, in the hope of raising awareness and ultimately improving the quality and reliability of scientific research [7].The new meta-research section of PLOS Biology will be data-driven and feature experimental, observational, modelling, and meta-analytic research that addresses issues related to the design, methods, reporting, verification, and evaluation of research.It will also encompass research into the systems that evaluate and reward individual scientists and institutions.We welcome both exploratory and confirmatory research that has the potential to drive change in research and evaluation practices in the life sciences and beyond.The themes include, but are not limited to, transparency, established and novel methodological standards, sources of bias (conflicts of interest, selection, inflation, funding, etc.), data sharing, evaluation metrics, assessment, reward, and funding structures.To support our consideration of meta-research articles we have recently added several experts in this area to
Source: PLoS Biology
Language: English
Subfield: Information Systems and Management
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $5,500
OpenAlex ID: W2232286546