Conrad Law and Policy Counsel, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):757-64. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002737. Epub 2010 Dec 15.
We examined the extent to which consensus exists on the criteria that should be used for assessing the credibility of a scientific work, regardless of its funding source, and explored how these criteria might be implemented.
Three publications, all presented at a session of the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, have proposed a range of criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. At least two other similar sets of criteria have recently been proposed elsewhere.
DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: In this article we review these criteria, highlight the commonalities among them, and integrate them into a list of 10 criteria. We also discuss issues inherent in any attempt to implement the criteria systematically.
Recommendations by many scientists and policy experts converge on a finite list of criteria for assessing the credibility of a scientific study without regard to funding source. These criteria should be formalized through a consensus process or a governmental initiative that includes discussion and pilot application of a system for reproducibly implementing them. Formal establishment of such a system should enable the debate regarding chemical studies to move beyond funding issues and focus on scientific merit.
我们研究了在何种程度上存在共识，即无论其资金来源如何，都应使用哪些标准来评估科学工作的可信度，并探讨了这些标准可能如何实施。
三篇出版物均在 2009 年风险分析学会年会上的一次会议上提出，提出了一系列评估科学研究可信度的标准。最近在其他地方也提出了至少另外两套类似的标准。
资料提取/综合：在本文中，我们回顾了这些标准，突出了它们之间的共同点，并将其整合为 10 项标准列表。我们还讨论了系统实施这些标准所固有的问题。
许多科学家和政策专家的建议都集中在评估科学研究可信度的有限标准上，而不考虑资金来源。这些标准应通过共识过程或政府倡议来正式确定，其中包括讨论和试行实施这些标准的系统。正式建立这样的系统应该使关于化学研究的辩论超越资金问题，而专注于科学价值。
