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."
The Summit will also introduce GBSI’s Reproducibility2020, an action plan for the biomedical research community to significantly improve the quality of research by 2020 targeting: 1) improved validation and standardization of biological reagents; 2) better tools and technologies to expand open access for reporting and sharing protocols and data; and 3) increased training that emphasizes rigorous study design and practice.
A talk given by Noam Ross: "Why was, as the title suggests, primarily focused on the benefits of reproducibility to us, and I proceeded from avoiding negatives (risk avoidance) to creating positives (more impact). In How I tried to be very high-level, talking about major concepts in reproducibility, and then talking generally about the tools that I have used for each, emphasizing that they may not be the right tools for everyone. Then we had a discussion about the most promising areas and tools to start with."
Fernando Chirigati and Remi Rampin's poster "Enhancing Scholarly Communication with ReproZip" was recently accepted at FORCE2016, a conference from FORCE11 a community of scholars, librarians, archivists, publishers and research funders that has arisen organically to help facilitate the change toward improved knowledge creation and sharing.
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.
A video demonstrating noWorkflow, a non-intrusive tool that allows researchers to capture a variety of provenance information and utilize the analyses it supports, including graph-based visualization, differencing over provenance trails, and inference queries.