|Original language||English (US)|
|Journal||American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology|
|State||Published - Dec 2018|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Physiology (medical)
Access to Document
Other files and links
Revised guidelines to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of research published in american physiological society journals. / Yosten, Gina L.C.; Adams, Josephine C.; Bennett, Christina N.; Bunnett, Nigel W.; Scheman, Rita; Sigmund, Curt D.; Yates, Bill J.; Zucker, Irving H.; Samson, Willis K.In: American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 315, No. 6, 12.2018, p. R1251-R1253.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Revised guidelines to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of research published in american physiological society journals
AU - Yosten, Gina L.C.
AU - Adams, Josephine C.
AU - Bennett, Christina N.
AU - Bunnett, Nigel W.
AU - Scheman, Rita
AU - Sigmund, Curt D.
AU - Yates, Bill J.
AU - Zucker, Irving H.
AU - Samson, Willis K.
N1 - Funding Information: The report by this NINDS working group and those of other groups commenting on shortcomings in clinical trials (15) and preclinical studies (2, 10) contributed to a refocusing of guidelines for enhancing scientific rigor and reproducibility published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (https:// grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htm) and the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs, https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ arrive-guidelines). The NIH statement focused specifically on rigor and reproducibility in grant applications and addressed several key (and now required) elements of requests for funding. These included a clear definition of the scientific premise of the proposed work and a description of how the proposal would advance the field. Important areas of focus included strict attention (rigor) to scientific method, unbiased design, and data analysis and interpretation. The guidelines also addressed issues that contribute to reproducibility, requiring, in particular, a comprehensive description of biological variables (including but not limited to sex, age, weight, health conditions, and criteria for exclusion) and careful description of key biological resources. This latter issue is extremely important to the concept of reproducibility and places the burden of validation of reagents on the grant applicant and, as we will discuss below, potential authors. These issues also apply to non-USA authors because many funding bodies around the world have put in place new statements of policy (e.g., http://www.dfg.de/ en/service/press/press_releases/2017/press_release_no_13/) or requirements for grant applications (e.g., https://mrc.ukri.org/ documents/pdf/reproducibility-update-from-sponsors/).
PY - 2018/12
Y1 - 2018/12
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058804299&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058804299&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1152/ajpregu.00274.2018
DO - 10.1152/ajpregu.00274.2018
M3 - Editorial
C2 - 30332303
AN - SCOPUS:85058804299
VL - 315
SP - R1251-R1253
JO - American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology
JF - American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology
SN - 0363-6127
IS - 6