How Quality Can Improve Reproducibility

  • Antonella Lanati


This chapter deals with the reproducibility of scientific results that is emerging as a problem undermining not only the value of research, delaying the exploitation of outcomes and wasting valuable resources, but also its credibility. The phenomenon of irreproducibility is described and analysed with data taken from the press and the scientific environment, and reasons and possible solutions are discussed. The management of research according to quality principles and methods is then presented as the most promising approach to maintain the proper control on the process of scientific discovery and the guaranteeing of good results.


Reproducibility Quality Quality management Credibility of science Paper retraction Misconduct Fraud Scientific errors Research integrity 


  1. 1.
    Hillgard J, Jamieson KH. Does a scientific breakthrough increase confidence in science? News of a Zika vaccine and trust in science. Sci Commun. 2017;39(4):548–60. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trouble at the lab—scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not. The Economist. 2013. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  3. 3.
    How Science goes wrong—scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. The Economist. 2013. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Naik G. Scientists’ elusive goal: reproducing study results. The Wall Street Journal. 2011. Accessed 26 Sep 2017.
  6. 6.
    Arrowsmith J. Trial watch: phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:328–9. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Héroux ME, et al. Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175635. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mobley A, et al. A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63221. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freedman LP, et al. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zimmer C. A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform The New York Times. 2012. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.
  11. 11.
    Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37:249–53. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montgomery and Oliver. Conceptualizing fraudulent studies as viruses: new models for handling retractions. MINERVA. 2017;55(1). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plavén-Sigray P, et al. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife. 2017;6:e27725. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pasquier T, et al. Comment: if these data could talk. Scientific Data. 2017;4:170114. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jasny BR, et al. Fostering reproducibility in industry—academia research. Science. 2017;357(6353):759–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilmore RO, et al. Progress toward openness, transparency, and reproducibility in cognitive neuroscience. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1396(1):5–18. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dumas-Mallet E, et al. Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains. R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4:160254. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furst T, Strojil J. A patient called Medical Research. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2017;161(1):54–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612–3. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bauchner H. The rush to publication—an editorial and scientific mistake. JAMA. 2017;318(12):1109–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nature: challenges in irreproducible research. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  22. 22.
    Editorial. Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature. 2013;496:398. Scholar
  23. 23.
    COPE: code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. 2011. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  24. 24.
    COPE: code of conduct for journal publishers. 2011. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  25. 25.
    Davies R. Good research practice: it is time to do what others think we do. Quasar-RQA. 2013;124:21–3.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baker M. How quality control could save your science. Nature. 2016.;
  27. 27.
    OECD: OECD series on principles of good laboratory practice (GLP) and compliance monitoring (1995–2006). Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  28. 28.
    US Food and Drug Administration: ICH international conference on harmonization of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use Q10 pharmaceutical quality system. 2009. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  29. 29.
    Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science in Society: options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the expert group on the state of art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. 2013. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  30. 30.
    ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems—requirements.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poli M, Pardini S, Passarelli I, Citti I, Cornolti D, Picano E. The 4A’s improvement approach: a case study based on UNI EN ISO 9001:2008. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2015;26:11–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biasini V. Implementation of a quality management system in a public research centre. Accred Qual Assur. 2012.
  33. 33.
    Jefferson T. Quality and value: models of quality control for scientific research. Nature. 2006.
  34. 34.
    UK Government: joint code of practice for research (JCoPR). 2015. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  35. 35.
    RQA working party on quality in non-regulated research. Guidelines for quality in non-regulated scientific research booklet. RQA. 2008–2014.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    WHO: TDR handbook: quality practices in basic biomedical research. 2010. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
  38. 38.
    Singapore statement on research integrity. 2010. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonella Lanati
    • 1
  1. 1.Valore QualitàPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations