Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work

  title={Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work},
  author={Carolyn G. Begley},
  • C. Begley
  • Published 1 May 2013
  • History, Medicine
  • Nature
C. Glenn Begley explains how to recognize the preclinical papers in which the data won't stand up. 
Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility
Tie funding to verified good institutional practice, and robust science will shoot up the agenda, say C. Glenn Begley, Alastair M. Buchan and Ulrich Dirnagl.
Characterizing scientific failure
A better understanding of the nature and causes of failure in research could inform policies to improve the reproducibility of biomedical research.
  • S. Webb
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • 2015
Sarah Webb explores how reproducibility issues in basic science are creating bumps on the road to the clinic.
Waste not, want not.
  • H. Rockman
  • Medicine
    The Journal of clinical investigation
  • 2014
In this Editorial, the current JCI Editorial Board has evaluated approximately 7,000 manuscripts over the past 22 months for their suitability for publication in the authors' journal.
Be-(a)-ware of the red flags: common flaws of nonreproducible preclinical research studies.
The shocking discovery that the majority (75%–89%) of preclinical research studies, predominantly oncology related and published in top-tier journals, could not be reproduced was recently reported
A New Account of Replication in the Experimental Life Sciences
The life sciences are said to be in the midst of a replication crisis because (1) a majority of published results are irreproducible, and (2) scientists rarely replicate existing data. Here I argue
A Rhumba of “R’s”: Replication, Reproducibility, Rigor, Robustness: What Does a Failure to Replicate Mean?
How failures to replicate should be interpreted and possible new journal practices are suggested to improve scientific rigor are considered.
Big data and its epistemology
Whether Big Data, in the form of data‐driven science, will enable the discovery, or appraisal, of universal scientific theories, instrumentalist tools, or inductive inferences is considered.
Controversies in ASSAY and drug development technologies: a focus on assessing irreproducibility.
Through a series of questions, members of the editorial board were asked their opinions on scientific irreproducibility and chose to answer the same questions from different levels, indicating the depth of the problem and perhaps where they each believe change for the better needs to begin.
Falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism: the unholy trinity of scientific writing.
  • A. Zietman
  • Medicine
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
  • 2013
One of the greatest, and sadly all too common, challenges facing a contemporary medical journal editor is the adjudication of ethical integrity issues, ranging from unconscious and unwitting naiveté to the conscious and willful betrayal of scientific trust.


Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis propose how methods, publications and incentives must change if patients are to benefit.
Research methods: Know when your numbers are significant
  • D. Vaux
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • 2012
Experimental biologists, their reviewers and their publishers must grasp basic statistics, urges David L. Vaux, or sloppy science will continue to grow.
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
1. This indicates the limitations of the predictivity of disease models and also that the validity of the targets being investigated is frequently questionable, which is a crucial issue to address if
How to Guard Against Image Fraud
  • Nature 483,
  • 2012
Seasonal to Decadal Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice: Challenges and Strategies
  • 2012
How to Guard Against Image Fraud' The Scientist