Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More information

Franca 2019 Learn Pub

From Bioblast
Revision as of 11:29, 26 January 2021 by Iglesias-Gonzalez Javier (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision β†’ (diff)
Publications in the MiPMap
Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Reproducibility crisis, the scientific method, and the quality of published studies: In tangling the knot. Learn Pub 32:1-3.

Β» Wiley Online Library

Franca TFA, Monserrat JM (2019) Learn Pub

Abstract: β€’ Although there is no unique scientific method, there are general requirements that reports of empirical evidence must fulfil in order to be useful. β€’ Enforcing general requirements can improve the quality of published studies without promoting a narrowly defined scientific method that would limit the scope of science. β€’ The reproducibility movement advises against using novelty as the main requirement for publication and promotes the enforcement of transparent reporting and rigorous peer review. β€’ Novelty is important for science but must not be the sole requirement for publication decisions as this can lead to publication bias and seriously distort the scientific literature. β€’ While the scientific community remains responsible for thoroughly evaluating published papers, strengthening the peer review process will help to improve transparency and replicability.

β€’ Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J

Cited by

  • Iglesias-Gonzalez et al (2021) Proficiency test in mt-respiration: A necessary tool for reliable and reproducible results. MitoFit Preprints 2021 (in prep).

Labels:






MitoFit 2021 PT