Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A useful source of information regarding paper retractions can be found in a watchdog blog, Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/), which provides up-to-date information and commentaries.
- 2.
Montgomery and Oliver [12] model the consequences on the international scientific community of a false science article, which contaminates the knowledge system when it is kept as valid, to the mechanisms of spreading of a virus.
- 3.
PhRMA (The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) is an association of leading US biopharmaceutical researchers and biotechnology companies.
- 4.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—UK.
- 5.
World Health Organisation (WHO) and its Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR).
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017719075.
Trouble at the lab—scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not. The Economist. 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
How Science goes wrong—scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. The Economist. 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069scientificresearchhaschangedworldnowitneedschangeitselfhowsciencegoeswrong. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
Achenbach J. The new scientific revolution: reproducibility at last. The Washington Post. 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-new-scientific-revolution-reproducibility-at-last/2015/01/27/ed5f2076-9546-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html?utm_term=.61cd223ff312. Accessed 26 Sep 2017.
Naik G. Scientists’ elusive goal: reproducing study results. The Wall Street Journal. 2011. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590. Accessed 26 Sep 2017.
Arrowsmith J. Trial watch: phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:328–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439.
Héroux ME, et al. Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175635.
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063221
Freedman LP, et al. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165.
Zimmer C. A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform The New York Times. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.
Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37:249–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923.
Montgomery and Oliver. Conceptualizing fraudulent studies as viruses: new models for handling retractions. MINERVA. 2017;55(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9311-z
Plavén-Sigray P, et al. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife. 2017;6:e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725.
Pasquier T, et al. Comment: if these data could talk. Scientific Data. 2017;4:170114. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.114.
Jasny BR, et al. Fostering reproducibility in industry—academia research. Science. 2017;357(6353):759–61.
Gilmore RO, et al. Progress toward openness, transparency, and reproducibility in cognitive neuroscience. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1396(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13325.
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. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160
Furst T, Strojil J. A patient called Medical Research. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2017;161(1):54–7.
Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/505612a.
Bauchner H. The rush to publication—an editorial and scientific mistake. JAMA. 2017;318(12):1109–10.
Nature: challenges in irreproducible research. http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
Editorial. Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature. 2013;496:398. https://doi.org/10.1038/496398a.
COPE: code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. 2011. https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
COPE: code of conduct for journal publishers. 2011. https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_publishers_Mar11.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
Davies R. Good research practice: it is time to do what others think we do. Quasar-RQA. 2013;124:21–3.
Baker M. How quality control could save your science. Nature. 2016.; http://www.nature.com/news/howqualitycontrolcouldsaveyourscience1.19223
OECD: OECD series on principles of good laboratory practice (GLP) and compliance monitoring (1995–2006). http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/oecdseriesonprinciplesofgoodlaboratorypracticeglpandcompliancemonitoring.htm. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
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. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm073517.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
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. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems—requirements.
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.
Biasini V. Implementation of a quality management system in a public research centre. Accred Qual Assur. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-012-0936-9.
Jefferson T. Quality and value: models of quality control for scientific research. Nature. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05031.
UK Government: joint code of practice for research (JCoPR). 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-code-of-practice-for-research-jcopr. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
RQA working party on quality in non-regulated research. Guidelines for quality in non-regulated scientific research booklet. RQA. 2008–2014.
RQA: quality systems workbook. 2013. https://www.therqa.com/assets/js/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Publications/RQA_Quality_Systems_Workbook.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2017.
WHO: TDR handbook: quality practices in basic biomedical research. 2010. http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/quality_practices.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
Singapore statement on research integrity. 2010. http://www.singaporestatement.org/index.html . Accessed 13 Sep 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lanati, A. (2018). How Quality Can Improve Reproducibility. In: Quality Management in Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76750-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76750-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76749-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76750-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)