Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Independent Labs To Verify High-Profile Research Papers 74

Posted by Soulskill
from the oh-the-drama dept.
ananyo writes "Scientific publishers are backing an initiative to encourage authors of high-profile research papers to get their results replicated by independent labs. Validation studies will earn authors a certificate and a second publication, and will save other researchers from basing their work on faulty results. The problem of irreproducible results has gained prominence in recent months. In March, a cancer researcher at Amgen pharmaceutical company reported that its scientists had repeated experiments in 53 'landmark' papers, but managed to confirm findings from only six of the studies. And last year, an internal survey at Bayer HealthCare found that inconsistencies between published findings and the company's own results caused delays or cancellations in about two-thirds of projects. Now, 'Reproducibility Initiative,' a commercial online portal is offering authors the chance of getting their results validated (albeit for a price). Once the validation studies are complete, the original authors will have the option of publishing the results in the open access journal PLoS ONE, linked to the original publication."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Independent Labs To Verify High-Profile Research Papers

Comments Filter:
  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @12:32PM (#40998973) Homepage

    That's always been a problem; the journals usually want to publish new work, and aren't interested in publishing work that just repeats something already done.

    I'm puzzled by this sentence, though: "Once the validation studies are complete, the original authors will have the option of publishing the results in PLoS ONE, linked to the original publication. "

    They're saying that the people who did the work replicating the experiment don't get the credit for their work, but instead the authors of the paper that they're trying to replicate do?

    And, what if the new work doesn't replicate the results? Does it get published? Credited to whom?

  • Ratios (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bmo (77928) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @01:04PM (#40999263)

    >53 'landmark' papers, but managed to confirm findings from only six of the studies.

    That's 89 percent crap. (88.7%)

    Sounds about right.

    I repeat Sturgeonâ(TM)s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms. -- Theodore Sturgeon

    And as I get older, it seems that this observation holds true more every day, in everything.

    --
    BMO

Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval

Working...