TY - JOUR
AU - Delphine R. Boulbes
AU - Tracy Costello
AU - Keith Baggerly
AU - Fan Fan
AU - Rui Wang
AU - Rajat Bhattacharya
AU - Xiangcang Ye
AU - Lee M. Ellis
AB - Purpose
The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11–45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes of data irreproducibility and underscored potential solutions; more robust experimental designs, better statistics, and better mentorship. However, no prior survey has addressed the role of the review and publication process on honest reporting.

Experimental design
We developed an anonymous online survey intended for trainees involved in bench research. The survey included questions related to mentoring/career development, research practice, integrity and transparency, and how the pressure to publish, and the publication process itself influence their reporting practices.

Results
Responses to questions related to mentoring and training practices were largely positive, although an average of ~25% didn’t seem to receive optimal mentoring. 39.2% revealed having been pressured by a principle investigator or collaborator to produce “positive” data. 62.8% admitted that the pressure to publish influences the way they report data. The majority of respondents did not believe that extensive revisions significantly improved the manuscript while adding to the cost and time invested.

Conclusions
This survey indicates that trainees believe that the pressure to publish impacts honest reporting, mostly emanating from our system of rewards and advancement. The publication process itself impacts faculty and trainees and appears to influence a shift in their ethics from honest reporting (“negative data”) to selective reporting, data falsification, or even fabrication.
BT - Clinical Cancer Research
DA - 2018-7-15
DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227
IS - 14
N2 - Purpose
The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11–45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes of data irreproducibility and underscored potential solutions; more robust experimental designs, better statistics, and better mentorship. However, no prior survey has addressed the role of the review and publication process on honest reporting.

Experimental design
We developed an anonymous online survey intended for trainees involved in bench research. The survey included questions related to mentoring/career development, research practice, integrity and transparency, and how the pressure to publish, and the publication process itself influence their reporting practices.

Results
Responses to questions related to mentoring and training practices were largely positive, although an average of ~25% didn’t seem to receive optimal mentoring. 39.2% revealed having been pressured by a principle investigator or collaborator to produce “positive” data. 62.8% admitted that the pressure to publish influences the way they report data. The majority of respondents did not believe that extensive revisions significantly improved the manuscript while adding to the cost and time invested.

Conclusions
This survey indicates that trainees believe that the pressure to publish impacts honest reporting, mostly emanating from our system of rewards and advancement. The publication process itself impacts faculty and trainees and appears to influence a shift in their ethics from honest reporting (“negative data”) to selective reporting, data falsification, or even fabrication.
PY - 2018
SP - 3447
EP - 3455
T2 - Clinical Cancer Research
TI - A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6050098/
VL - 24
Y2 - 2024-09-04
SN - 1078-0432
ER -