Abstract
Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000–2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.
Highlights
There is a growing interest in evaluating and ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature
Our evaluation suggests that there have been improvements over the last few years in some aspects of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed
Our findings indicate that substantial progress been made since our previous evaluation of biomedical articles published between 2000 and 2014, with the proportion of articles with information related to data sharing appearing to have increased since 2014
Summary
There is a growing interest in evaluating and ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. Multiple recent efforts are attempting to address some of the existing concerns [2,3,4,5,6] These initiatives, as well as previous proposals by several stakeholders to change scientific practice, may be resulting in genuine improvements in the transparency, openness, and reproducibility of the scientific literature. Over half of the articles in the sample claimed to present some novel discoveries and the vast majority did not have subsequent studies that were attempting to replicate part or all of their findings [7]. These results suggested that there is significant room for improvement with regard to reproducible research practices. The study provided baseline data to compare future progress across key indicators of reproducibility and transparency
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
