Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2016 Aug 30;7(4):e01256-16.
doi: 10.1128/mBio.01256-16.

A Framework for Improving the Quality of Research in the Biological Sciences

Affiliations
Editorial

A Framework for Improving the Quality of Research in the Biological Sciences

Arturo Casadevall et al. mBio. .

Abstract

The American Academy of Microbiology convened a colloquium to discuss problems in the biological sciences, with emphasis on identifying mechanisms to improve the quality of research. Participants from various disciplines made six recommendations: (i) design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria to recognize and reward high-quality scientific research; (ii) require universal training in good scientific practices, appropriate statistical usage, and responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists; (iii) establish open data at the timing of publication as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise; (iv) encourage scientific journals to publish negative data that meet methodologic standards of quality; (v) agree upon common criteria among scientific journals for retraction of published papers, to provide consistency and transparency; and (vi) strengthen research integrity oversight and training. These recommendations constitute an actionable framework that, in combination, could improve the quality of biological research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:17028–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Begley CG, Ellis LM. 2012. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Open Science Collaboration 2015. Psychology. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fanelli D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4:e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources