observed data and carry through a satisfactory analysis upon poor observations, will end up with ridiculous conclusions which cannot be maintained”. Raymond Pearl, 1919 Via Doug Altman, Iveta Simera: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/a- history-of-the-evolution-of-guidelines-for-reporting-medical-research-the- long-road-to-the-equator-network/
it • Results reproducibility: it replicates • Inferential reproducibility: similar conclusions drawn about it Defining research reproducibility Goodman, Fanelli, Ioannidis (2016). Science Translational Medicine; 8 (341) ps12 But even this still doesn’t cover everything in this debate
Scientometrics; 1(3). http:// www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1007/BF02016308 1st co-authored article (1870) 1st article with >1,000 authors (2004) INTERNET Wikipedia (2001) 40% of papers have co-authors (1940)
of non-response to important questions & criticism • More accountability and consequences for editors, reviewers, and journals (Südhof (2016). PLOS Biology 14(8): e1002547.)
to avoid the pitfalls https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/questionable-research- practices-definition-detect-and-recommendations-for-better-practices/