Posts about reproducibility report (old posts, page 3)

Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors

Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix, report David B. Allison and colleagues: "In the course of assembling weekly lists of articles in our field, we began noticing more peer-reviewed articles containing what we call substantial or invalidating errors. These involve factual mistakes or veer substantially from clearly accepted procedures in ways that, if corrected, might alter a paper's conclusions."

New Shotgun Mass Spec Workflow Could Improve Reproducibility of Protein Quantitation in DDA

Researchers at Sweden's Karolinska Institute and Royal Institute of Technology have developed a new data analysis workflow for shotgun mass spec that could help improve the technique's quantitative reproducibility. Detailed in a paper published this month in Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, the approach uses a new quality scoring system that allows for more reliable recovery of missing data points across multiple mass spec runs.

How do we fix bad science?

Independently verifying research can help science regain its credibility, argues Laurie Zoloth. His paper: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", was published in August 2005, in PLOS Medicine. It became one of the journal’s most-cited articles. While climate sceptics, anti-vaccination campaigners and the rest of the pseudo-science community have dined out on this paper, arguably it has been a shot in the arm for science.