Abstract
Background Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature. Objective This study aimed to determine the quality and transparency of the literature in dermatology journals by evaluating for the presence of 8 indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices. Methods By implementing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of publications in dermatology journals from the National Library of Medicine catalog. Our search included articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. After generating a list of eligible dermatology publications, we then searched for full text PDF versions by using Open Access Button, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Publications were analyzed for 8 indicators of reproducibility and transparency—availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocol, preregistration, conflict of interest statement, funding statement, and open access—using a pilot-tested Google Form. Results After exclusion, 127 studies with empirical data were included in our analysis. Certain indicators were more poorly reported than others. We found that most publications (113, 88.9%) did not provide unmodified, raw data used to make computations, 124 (97.6%) failed to make the complete protocol available, and 126 (99.2%) did not include step-by-step analysis scripts. Conclusions Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety. Solutions to increase the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of dermatology research are warranted. More robust reporting of key methodological details, open data sharing, and stricter standards journals impose on authors regarding disclosure of study materials might help to better the climate of reproducible research in dermatology.
Highlights
Scientific research is currently facing a reproducibility crisis, with an estimated 50% to 90% of research having been suggested to be irreproducible [1,2,3]
Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety
Supporting the notion of this crisis, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology experienced failure of 32 of 50 replication attempts, in part owing to insufficient reporting of information necessary to reproduce the original study [4]
Summary
Scientific research is currently facing a reproducibility crisis, with an estimated 50% to 90% of research having been suggested to be irreproducible [1,2,3]. Aiming to better understand the causes of melanoma, the authors conducted whole-genome sequencing of 25 human telomerase reverse transcriptase–immortalized metastatic melanoma cells and reported that 6 different PREX2 gene mutations are common to melanoma cells. They asserted that PREX2 mutations can increase the rate of tumor incidence compared with controls [5]. In one such attempt, Berger et al [6] obtained samples of human skin cells used in the original study and assiduously copied the study’s experimental conditions. Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature
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.
