生物医学研究人员对研究可重复性的看法。

IF 9.8 1区 生物学 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
PLoS Biology Pub Date : 2024-11-05 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870
Kelly D Cobey, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Matthew J Page, Robert T Thibault, Phi-Yen Nguyen, Farah Abu-Dalfa, David Moher
{"title":"生物医学研究人员对研究可重复性的看法。","authors":"Kelly D Cobey, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Matthew J Page, Robert T Thibault, Phi-Yen Nguyen, Farah Abu-Dalfa, David Moher","doi":"10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was \"significant.\" The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a \"pressure to publish\" with 62% of participants indicating it \"always\" or \"very often\" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":49001,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Biology","volume":"22 11","pages":"e3002870"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537370/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly D Cobey, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Matthew J Page, Robert T Thibault, Phi-Yen Nguyen, Farah Abu-Dalfa, David Moher\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was \\\"significant.\\\" The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a \\\"pressure to publish\\\" with 62% of participants indicating it \\\"always\\\" or \\\"very often\\\" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Biology\",\"volume\":\"22 11\",\"pages\":\"e3002870\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537370/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们针对生物医学研究人员对研究可重复性的看法开展了一项国际横断面调查。本研究以 2016 年一项被广泛引用的可重复性调查为基础,提供了生物医学特定的当代可重复性视角。为了对社区进行抽样调查,我们随机选择了 400 种被 MEDLINE 索引的期刊,从中提取了 2020 年 10 月 1 日至 2021 年 10 月 1 日期间发表的所有文章的作者姓名和电子邮件。我们邀请参与者完成匿名在线调查,调查内容包括基本人口统计学信息、对可重复性危机的看法、研究成果不可重复的原因、开展可重复性研究的经验以及对可重复性研究的资助和培训的了解。共有 1,924 名参与者参与了我们的调查,其中 1,630 人提供了可用的回复(回复率为 23,234 人的 7%)。主要发现包括:72%的参与者认为生物医学存在可重复性危机,27%的参与者表示危机 "严重"。造成不可再现性的主要原因是 "出版压力",62%的参与者表示 "总是 "或 "经常 "有这种压力。约有一半的参与者(54%)曾对自己以前发表的研究进行过复制,而对其他研究人员的研究进行过复制的参与者略多(57%)。仅有 16% 的参与者表示,他们所在的机构已经制定了提高生物医学研究可重复性的程序,67% 的参与者认为他们所在的机构重视新研究而非重复研究。参与者还报告说,他们很少有机会获得资金来尝试复制一项研究,83%的人认为这样做比获得资金进行一项新的研究要困难得多。我们的研究结果可用于指导培训和干预措施,以提高研究的可重复性,并随着时间的推移监测可重复性的比率。这些研究结果也与决策者和学术领导层有关,他们希望建立支持可重复性和重视研究质量的激励机制和研究文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research.

We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was "significant." The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a "pressure to publish" with 62% of participants indicating it "always" or "very often" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Biology
PLoS Biology BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY-BIOLOGY
CiteScore
15.40
自引率
2.00%
发文量
359
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Biology is the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and focuses on publishing groundbreaking and relevant research in all areas of biological science. The journal features works at various scales, ranging from molecules to ecosystems, and also encourages interdisciplinary studies. PLOS Biology publishes articles that demonstrate exceptional significance, originality, and relevance, with a high standard of scientific rigor in methodology, reporting, and conclusions. The journal aims to advance science and serve the research community by transforming research communication to align with the research process. It offers evolving article types and policies that empower authors to share the complete story behind their scientific findings with a diverse global audience of researchers, educators, policymakers, patient advocacy groups, and the general public. PLOS Biology, along with other PLOS journals, is widely indexed by major services such as Crossref, Dimensions, DOAJ, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, PLOS Biology is indexed by various other services including AGRICOLA, Biological Abstracts, BIOSYS Previews, CABI CAB Abstracts, CABI Global Health, CAPES, CAS, CNKI, Embase, Journal Guide, MEDLINE, and Zoological Record, ensuring that the research content is easily accessible and discoverable by a wide range of audiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信