Actions Proposed for Rigor and Reproducibility


On this page you will find possible solutions to the following question:

How can we improve the rigor and reproducibility of the scientific findings that are published?

The actions below have been proposed by the commenters on this website, ordered with the most recent on top.

Lorenzo Federico: MD Anderson Cancer Center

Posted: June 11, 2015

Topic: Errors in Science

“…Ideally, scientists should be principally rewarded according to the reproducibility of their research. In theory, published research can be scrutinized and reassessed by trained scientists/inspectors in collaboration with principal investigators and postdocs that made the study. Each year a number of high profile papers can be selected for such inspection…”


Vaibhav Pai: Tufts

Posted: May 29, 2015

Topic: Errors in Science
NIH has a vested interest in publishing the research conducted using its funds even if it validates or refutes (negative result) previous findings. NIH should invest in creating a centralized (online) publishing outlet (free for NIH funded research/researchers) that accepts individual experiments, negative results and validation results with a post-publication review model. Such a model has already been tried in the field of Physics and is enormously successful in cutting down the publication costs…


Nene Kalu: MD Anderson Cancer Center

Posted: May 15, 2015

Topic: Errors in Science
“This is my biggest pet peeve as well. In a perfect world there would be no impact factor. However, it may be beneficial for online journals to allow other researchers in the same field to read and review published articles. ….”


Click here to see all comments on all topics >>
Offer your input on how to solve this problem here >>


Leave a Comment