ArticlemBio2016
A Framework for Improving the Quality of Research in the Biological Sciences.
Article in mBio, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Implementation of project management methodologies in microbiology research laboratories.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Lessons from the "Urbanorum spp." controversy: a supposed parasite and the need for scientific rigor and quality research in Latin America.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2025Article
- Trace elements increase replicability of microbial growth.Open biology · 2025Article
- Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Training doctoral students in critical thinking and experimental design using problem-based learning.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Improving research integrity: a framework for responsible science communication.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- A 3D-printable device allowing fast and reproducible longitudinal preparation of mouse intestines.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2022Article
- EMBRACE-WATERS statement: Recommendations for reporting of studies on antimicrobial resistance in wastewater and related aquatic environments.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Mapping the discursive dimensions of the reproducibility crisis: A mixed methods analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Framework for advancing rigorous research.eLife · 2020Article
- Understanding the nature and scope of clinical research commentaries in PubMed.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Ten simple rules for providing effective bioinformatics research support.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Antibody validation for Western blot: By the user, for the user.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020Article
- Scientific Productivity and Cancer-Related Mortality: A Case Study of a Positive Association in Colombia.Journal of global oncology · 2019Article
- Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Article
- Publication status of completed registered studies in paediatric appendicitis: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2018Observational
- Article
- The Riffomonas Reproducible Research Tutorial Series.The Journal of open source education · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American Academy of Microbiology convened a colloquium to discuss problems in the biological sciences, with emphasis on identifying mechanisms to improve the quality of research. Participants from various disciplines made six recommendations: (i) design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria to recognize and reward high-quality scientific research; (ii) require universal training in good scientific practices, appropriate statistical usage, and responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists; (iii) establish open data at the timing of publication as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise; (iv) encourage scientific journals to publish negative data that meet methodologic standards of quality; (v) agree upon common criteria among scientific journals for retraction of published papers, to provide consistency and transparency; and (vi) strengthen research integrity oversight and training. These recommendations constitute an actionable framework that, in combination, could improve the quality of biological research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.