Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Reproducibility and Data Reuse
Pages 9-14

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 9...
... . While both reproducibility and replicability are hallmarks of good science, a successful replication does not guarantee that the original scientific results of a study were correct, nor does a single failed replication refute the original claims.
From page 10...
... In addition to studies that advance the understanding of microbial life, the journal will also consider publishing replication studies, technically robust datasets that may contradict published findings, negative results, descriptive datasets that would serve as a community resource, and methodological advances and detailed experimental protocols. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Turning to the issue of research misconduct, Kullas defined it as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results." Fabrication refers to making up data or results and recoding or reporting them, while falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data.
From page 11...
... Copy and paste errors may not be intentional but rather the result of sloppy science, pointing to the importance of carefully reviewing the original data, as well as the proposed publication, said Kullas. Preventing sloppy science includes labeling files appropriately, depositing the original images into a repository, or providing the original images at the time of submission.
From page 12...
... For the larger community, data sharing increases public trust in and understanding of science, triggers innovation, informs policy decisions, and strengthens the economy. Two more options to increase transparency and reproducibility are Contributor Roles Taxonomy, 15 which identifies the roles played by contributors to scientific scholarly output, and ORCiD, 16 a persistent digital identifier that an individual owns and controls.
From page 13...
... She noted that since data storage has become so reasonably priced, there is no reason not to archive original data, and pointed out that some publishers are asking for original blots and microscopy images to accompany submitted manuscripts. Kalichman credited ASM with being a leader in fostering scientific integrity, and asked Kullas what other fields could do to move the needle in RCR.
From page 14...
... The group discussed publishers' requirement to provide original data and suggested that publishers could create a publication ethics checklist that authors would complete before submitting their paper. The group commented on the tremendous effort and resources needed to correct mistakes and discussed ways of preventing mistakes before publication, including asking investigators to turn over their data to an artist or other researcher who was not involved in data collection who could create graphics from those data; extending the practice of preregistering clinical trials to other areas of research with the proviso of making allowances for exploratory research; collaborating with the Committee on Publication Ethics 19 to bridge the gap between researchers, editors, and publishers; teaching ethical decision making; requiring every researcher take statistics; and blinded peer review.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.