Raw data from survey on reproducibility survey run by Nature Publishing Group November 2015, published in Nature June 2016
A poster by Rebecca Davies in the field of Veterinary Medicine.
This week, Hidden Brain looks at the "replication crisis" through zooming in on one seminal paper that was the focus of two replication efforts: one succeeded in replicating the original finding, the other failed.
There are many actions researchers can take to increase the openness and reproducibility of their work. This introductory webinar from the Center for Open Science is aimed at faculty, staff, and students involved in agricultural research. Participants will gain a foundation for incorporating reproducible, transparent practices into their current workflows.
We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency.
This is a guide from Stanford University outlining methodology, tools, and resources for increasing reproducibility in science.