Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017 release eptiiv3ctrg2heo4oauyjmqyye

by Joshua D. Wallach, Kevin W. Boyack, John P. A. Ioannidis

Published in PLoS Biology by Public Library of Science (PLoS)
ISSN-L 1544-9173
Volume 16
Issue 11
Page(s) e2006930
Release Date 2018-11-20
Publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Primary Language en (lookup)
All Contributors (4)


Extra Metadata (raw JSON)

crossref.subject ['General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology', 'General Immunology and Microbiology', 'General Neuroscience', 'General Agricultural and Biological Sciences']
crossref.license [{'delay-in-days': 0, 'content-version': 'vor', 'URL': '', 'start': '2018-11-20T00:00:00Z'}]
crossref.type journal-article

Known Files and URLs

sha1:0204385f3caec6c7bcb0... (webarchive) (aggregator)


This release citing other releases
  1. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility Nature.2016452 (DOI: 10.1038/533452a)
  2. A manifesto for reproducible science Nature human behavior.2017
  3. Research, regulatory, and clinical decision-making: the importance of scientific integrity J Clin Epidemiol.2017
  4. How to make more published research true PLoS Med.2014e1001747 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747)
  5. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis Lancet.2014166 (DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8)
  6. SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture Science.20151422 (DOI: 10.1126/science.aab2374)
  7. Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature PLoS Biol.2016e1002333 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333)
  8. Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risks 2015
  9. Sharing Clinical Trial Data—A Proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors N Engl J Med.2016384 (DOI: 10.1056/nejme1515172)
  10. Data Sharing Statements for Clinical Trials: A Requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors JAMA.20172491 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.6514)
  11. Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in BMJ.2018k400 (DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k400)
  12. What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med.2016341ps12 (DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027)
  13. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science Science.2015aac4716 (DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716)
  14. Making sense of replications Elife.2017 (DOI: 10.7554/elife.23383)
  15. The Reproducibility Wars: Successful, Unsuccessful, Uninterpretable, Exact, Conceptual, Triangulated, Contested Replication Clin Chem.2017943 (DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271965)
  16. Telerheumatology: A Systematic Review Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken).20171546 (DOI: 10.1002/acr.23153)
  17. Comparison of endoscopic and external resections for sinonasal instestinal-type adenocarcinoma Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.20164343 (DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-4181-4)
  18. Disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors of clinical trials and editorials in oncology J Clin Oncol.20074642 (DOI: 10.1200/jco.2007.11.2482)
  19. Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research Cancer.20092783 (DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24315)
  20. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review JAMA.2003454 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454)
  21. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice 2009
  22. Data on endogenous chicken sperm peptides and small proteins obtained through Top-Down High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data Brief.20161421 (DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2016.07.050)
  23. PLoS ONE. Data Availability. Available from:
  24. Data sharing in PLoS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements PLoS ONE.2018e0194768 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194768)
  25. Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency PLoS Biol.2016e1002456 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456)
  26. National Institutes of Health. Plan for Increasing Access to Scientific Publications and Digital Scientific Data from NIH Funded Scientific Research. February 2015.
  27. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned JAMA.20022831 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2831)
  28. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions J Clin Epidemiol.2018 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017)
  29. Why most published research findings are false PLoS Med.2005e124 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
  30. Discovering discoveries: Identifying biomedical discoveries using citation contexts Journal of Informetrics.2017 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.001)
  31. Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990–2015 JAMA.20161141 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.1952)
  32. Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability Perspect Psychol Sci.2012615 (DOI: 10.1177/1745691612459058)
  33. BMC Research Notes. Aims and scope.
  34. How Elsevier is breaking down barriers to reproducibility How Elsevier is breaking down barriers to reproducibility.2017
  35. Why replication has more scientific value than original discovery Behavioral and Brain Sciences.2018e137 (DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x18000729)
  36. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Funding Support (Grant) Information in MEDLINE/PubMed. 2018. Available from:
  37. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Grant Number Information Found in the GR Field in MEDLINE/PubMed. 2018. Available from:
  38. 'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review PLoS Biol.2017e2002173 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173)
  39. Design and update of a classification system: the UCSD map of science PLoS ONE.2012e39464 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039464)
  40. Research portfolio analysis and topic prominence Journal of Informetrics.2017 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.10.002)
  41. Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis Journal of Informetrics.201859 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.005)
  42. The Proposal to Lower P Value Thresholds to .005 JAMA.20181429 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.1536)
Download Full Text
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2018-11-20
Container Metadata
Open Access Publication
ISSN-L:  1544-9173
Fatcat Entry
Work Entity
grouping other versions (eg, pre-print) and variants of this release
Fatcat Bits

State is "active". Revision:
As JSON object via API