Between Innovation and Standardization, Is There Still a Room for Scientific Reports? The Rise of a Formatting Tradition in Periodontal Research

Abstract

Everybody, regardless of their role, is aware that biomedical research is rapidly evolving, and the demand for reproducibility is increasing together with the amount of novel information. “Before reproducibility must come pre-producibility” “Checklists work to improve science”, just to quote some of the articles querying how to find a new bridge between ethics in science and the urgency for publishing. Looking for papers on anti-inflammatory compounds in periodontics, we came across a significant number of articles that could be considered a prototype of a consistent study format. The literature on the testing of active compounds on lipopolysaccharides- (LPS)-induced inflammation in gingival fibroblasts was searched to identify studies that followed a consistent format, to better understand their similarities and assess the appropriateness of their methods. Several studies were identified with a degree of similarity in their methods and formatting that was so high that it was possible to rule out that it was due to chance, and a format template common to these studies was outlined. Although this was most likely beyond the intentions of their authors, these studies may pose the basis for an in-vitro testing standard for anti-inflammatory compounds; however, the dangers of acritical uniformity are also apparent.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.