Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole

PLoS One. 2018 Sep 12;13(9):e0202762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202762. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

We developed a new probabilistic model to assess the impact of recommendations rectifying the reproducibility crisis (by publishing both positive and 'negative' results and increasing statistical power) on competing objectives, such as discovering causal relationships, avoiding publishing false positive results, and reducing resource consumption. In contrast to recent publications our model quantifies the impact of each single suggestion not only for an individual study but especially their relation and consequences for the overall scientific process. We can prove that higher-powered experiments can save resources in the overall research process without generating excess false positives. The better the quality of the pre-study information and its exploitation, the more likely this beneficial effect is to occur. Additionally, we quantify the adverse effects of both neglecting good practices in the design and conduct of hypotheses-based research, and the omission of the publication of 'negative' findings. Our contribution is a plea for adherence to or reinforcement of the good scientific practice and publication of 'negative' findings.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Biomedical Research*
  • Models, Theoretical*
  • Publishing
  • Reproducibility of Results

Grants and funding

The work is supported by The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). BfR reports to the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). The activities of the German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals are part of the Animal Welfare Initiative of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) entitled ’Minding animals - new ways to improve animal welfare‘.