ReviewJournal of molecular and cellular cardiology2018
Reproducibility of science: Fraud, impact factors and carelessness.
Review in Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuroglobin and Cytoglobin in Mammalian Nervous Systems: About Distribution, Regulation, Function, and Some Open Questions.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Journeying towards best practice data management in biodiversity genomics.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Predicting hospital length of stay using machine learning on a large open health dataset.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications.Current research in physiology · 2024Article
- Mixed effects modeling of radiotherapy in combination with immune checkpoint blockade or inhibitors of the DNA damage response pathway.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Replication of the natural selection of bad science.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Positive aspects of negative data.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology plus · 2022Article
- A modern automated patch-clamp approach for high throughput electrophysiology recordings in native cardiomyocytes.Communications biology · 2022Article
- A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018.BMC urology · 2022Review
- Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool (AIMRDA) for the Peer-Review of Studies Assessing the Anticancer Activity of Natural Products: A Step towards Reproducibility.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- BioVisReport: A Markdown-based lightweight website builder for reproducible and interactive visualization of results from peer-reviewed publications.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Is Bauman's "liquid modernity" influencing the way we are doing science?The Journal of general physiology · 2021Article
- What has changed after the COVID-19 pandemic in the publication process? A look-back to "Transfusion clinique et biologique".Transfusion clinique et biologique : journal de la Societe francaise de transfusion sanguine · 2021Article
- Pseudoreplication in physiology: More means less.The Journal of general physiology · 2021Review
- Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Review of Value of CT Texture Analysis and Machine Learning in Differentiating Fat-Poor Renal Angiomyolipoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2020Review
- A survey of research quality in core facilities.eLife · 2020Article
- Deciphering the role of the capsule of Klebsiella pneumoniae during pathogenesis: A cautionary tale.Molecular microbiology · 2020Article
- Genetic Ancestry Analysis Reveals Misclassification of Commonly Used Cancer Cell Lines.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is great concern that results published in a large fraction of biomedical papers may not be reproducible. This article reviews the evidence for this and considers some of the factors that are responsible and how the problem may be solved. One issue is scientific fraud. This, in turn, may result from pressures put on scientists to succeed including the need to publish in "high impact" journals. I emphasise the importance of judging the quality of the science itself as opposed to using surrogate metrics. The other factors discussed include problems of experimental design and statistical analysis of the work. It is important that these issues are addressed by the scientific community before others impose draconian regulations.
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.