SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
10 references·0 citing·36 second hop
Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study (2020)Improving quality of preclinical academic…Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility (2019)Rein in the four horsemen of …Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research (2019)Four erroneous beliefs thwart…Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting? (2019)Did a change in Nature journa…Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study (2018)Randomly auditing research la…Quality management for academic laboratories: burden or boon? (2018)Quality management for academ…A STAR Is Born (2016)A STAR Is Born1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility (2016)1,500 scientists lift the lid…Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility (2015)Robust research: Institutions…Reproducibility in Science (2014)Reproducibility in ScienceOpenness in science is key to keeping public trust (2014)Openness in science is key to…Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? (2011)Six red flags for suspect work (2013)Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility (2014)The natural selection of bad science (2016)Practical Computational Reproducibility in the Life Sciences (2017)The ABCD study: understanding the development of risk for mental and physical health outcomes (2020)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)What does research reproducibility mean? (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Redefine statistical significance (2017)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines (2020)Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake (2021)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity (2019)Understanding of researcher behavior is required to improve data reliability (2019)Impact of redefining statistical significance on P-hacking and false positive rates: An agent-based model (2024)Does Implementing an Effective TQM Program Actually Improve Operating Performance? Empirical Evidence from Firms That Have Won Quality Awards (1997)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation (2020)The Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods (2020)The MDAR (Materials Design Analysis Reporting) Framework for transparent reporting in the life sciences (2021)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Strengthening a weak link: transparency of causal loop diagrams — current state and recommendations (2023)Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited? (2024)Where civics meets science: building science for the public good through Civic Science (2016)Trusting on the Shoulders of Open Giants? Open Science Increases Trust in Science for the Public and Academics (2021)Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript (2019)Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies (2020)DOME: recommendations for supervised machine learning validation in biology (2021)Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole (2018)Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology (2021)From Methods to Monographs: Fostering a Culture of Research Quality (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 20161,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility4,536 cited
  • 2014Reproducibility in Science1,092 cited
  • 2019Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility200 cited
  • 2015Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility157 cited
  • 2019Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting?103 cited
  • 2016A STAR Is Born56 cited
  • 2018Quality management for academic laboratories: burden or boon?35 cited
  • 2014Openness in science is key to keeping public trust34 cited
  • 2018Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study18 cited
  • 2019Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research15 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work