Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
by
Perfito, Nicole
, Mathur, Maya
, Iorns, Elizabeth
, Denis, Alexandria
, Nosek, Brian A
, Soderberg, Courtney K
, Errington, Timothy M
in
Animals
/ Biology
/ Biomedical Research - methods
/ Cancer
/ Cancer Biology
/ Collaboration
/ Computational and Systems Biology
/ Experiments
/ Failure
/ Humans
/ Meta-analysis
/ Neoplasms
/ Open access
/ Replication
/ Reproducibility
/ reproducibility in cancer biology
/ Reproducibility of Results
/ Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology
/ Research Design - standards
/ Science
/ Success
/ transparency
2021
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
by
Perfito, Nicole
, Mathur, Maya
, Iorns, Elizabeth
, Denis, Alexandria
, Nosek, Brian A
, Soderberg, Courtney K
, Errington, Timothy M
in
Animals
/ Biology
/ Biomedical Research - methods
/ Cancer
/ Cancer Biology
/ Collaboration
/ Computational and Systems Biology
/ Experiments
/ Failure
/ Humans
/ Meta-analysis
/ Neoplasms
/ Open access
/ Replication
/ Reproducibility
/ reproducibility in cancer biology
/ Reproducibility of Results
/ Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology
/ Research Design - standards
/ Science
/ Success
/ transparency
2021
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
by
Perfito, Nicole
, Mathur, Maya
, Iorns, Elizabeth
, Denis, Alexandria
, Nosek, Brian A
, Soderberg, Courtney K
, Errington, Timothy M
in
Animals
/ Biology
/ Biomedical Research - methods
/ Cancer
/ Cancer Biology
/ Collaboration
/ Computational and Systems Biology
/ Experiments
/ Failure
/ Humans
/ Meta-analysis
/ Neoplasms
/ Open access
/ Replication
/ Reproducibility
/ reproducibility in cancer biology
/ Reproducibility of Results
/ Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology
/ Research Design - standards
/ Science
/ Success
/ transparency
2021
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
Journal Article
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
2021
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Replicability is an important feature of scientific research, but aspects of contemporary research culture, such as an emphasis on novelty, can make replicability seem less important than it should be. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology was set up to provide evidence about the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology by repeating selected experiments from high-impact papers. A total of 50 experiments from 23 papers were repeated, generating data about the replicability of a total of 158 effects. Most of the original effects were positive effects (136), with the rest being null effects (22). A majority of the original effect sizes were reported as numerical values (117), with the rest being reported as representative images (41). We employed seven methods to assess replicability, and some of these methods were not suitable for all the effects in our sample. One method compared effect sizes: for positive effects, the median effect size in the replications was 85% smaller than the median effect size in the original experiments, and 92% of replication effect sizes were smaller than the original. The other methods were binary – the replication was either a success or a failure – and five of these methods could be used to assess both positive and null effects when effect sizes were reported as numerical values. For positive effects, 40% of replications (39/97) succeeded according to three or more of these five methods, and for null effects 80% of replications (12/15) were successful on this basis; combining positive and null effects, the success rate was 46% (51/112). A successful replication does not definitively confirm an original finding or its theoretical interpretation. Equally, a failure to replicate does not disconfirm a finding, but it does suggest that additional investigation is needed to establish its reliability.
Publisher
eLife Sciences Publications Ltd,eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks
Related Items
Related Items
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.