2 ms·

Forget whether independent replication worked out and how the authors make confident claims in the paper ("this shows that", "therefore this is true") then back

• epistasis 11y ago
  >Forget whether independent replication worked out Ok, so totally forget how you're citing an editorial that doesn't support your pint and move on to new baseless accusations? >and how the authors make confident claims in the paper ("this shows that", "therefore this is true") then back down and admit it was preliminary data afterwards. This would be of interest if you had documentation of your extraordinary complaints. >Can you find one biomed paper published this month that is reproducible in its current form? I mean no missing/conflicting methodological information. My experience is that methodological descriptions are sufficient for reproduction in the papers that I read. Given the outlandish claims you've made, and your changing the subject when a bad cite is called out, I'd rather see some documentation from you than go on a fishing expedition.
  • nonbel 11y ago
    Sorry for the miscommunication. I was trying to give biomed an easier hurdle to surmount (reproducible at least in principle), not change the subject. Your reading of the paper did not make sense to me, so lets figure that out first. You wrote: "This editorial is about making it so that preclinical publications are only published when they're ready for the clinic." To me, the problems identified and suggestions provided by Begley and Ellis sound more like science 101 lessons rather than complaints about premature publication: "In studies for which findings could be reproduced, authors had paid close attention to controls, reagents, investigator bias and describing the complete data set. For results that could not be reproduced, however, data were not routinely analysed by investigators blinded to the experimental versus control groups. Investigators frequently presented the results of one experiment, such as a single Western-blot analysis. They sometimes said they presented specific experiments that supported their underlying hypothesis, but that were not reflective of the entire data set. There are no guidelines that require all data sets to be reported in a paper; often, original data are removed during the peer review and publication process. [...] As with clinical studies, preclinical investigators should be blinded to the control and treatment arms, and use only rigorously validated reagents. All experiments should include and show appropriate positive and negative controls. Critical experiments should be repeated, preferably by different investigators in the same lab, and the entire data set must be represented in the final publication. For example, showing data from tumour models in which a drug is inactive, and may not completely fit an original hypothesis, is just as important as showing models in which the hypothesis was confirmed." So why have we been able to interpret the meaning of these words so differently?