• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

提高学术出版的透明度和科学性。

Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

机构信息

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.

出版信息

Brain Behav. 2019 Jan;9(1):e01141. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1141. Epub 2018 Dec 2.

DOI:10.1002/brb3.1141
PMID:30506879
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6346653/
Abstract

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories.

摘要

当研究人员未能完整准确地报告研究的设计、执行和结果分析时,基础和临床研究的进展就会放缓。发表严谨的科学研究需要全面描述方法、材料、程序和结果。研究人员可能无法完整描述他们的研究设计和执行情况,因为他们可能不知道如何准确报告信息,或者没有机制来促进透明报告。在这里,我们提供了一个概述,说明作者如何以透明和彻底的方式撰写手稿。我们引入了一套可用于出版的报告标准,包括有关报告实验设计和统计方法的建议。我们还讨论了如何准确地可视化结果,并为同行评审员提供建议,以提高严谨性和透明度。将透明实践纳入研究手稿将显著提高独立实验室对结果的可重复性。

相似文献

1
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.提高学术出版的透明度和科学性。
Brain Behav. 2019 Jan;9(1):e01141. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1141. Epub 2018 Dec 2.
2
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.提高学术出版的透明度和科学性。
J Neurosci Res. 2019 Apr;97(4):377-390. doi: 10.1002/jnr.24340. Epub 2018 Dec 2.
3
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.提高学术出版的透明度和科学严谨性。
Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2019 Feb;2(1):e1150. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1150. Epub 2018 Dec 2.
4
Establishing Institutional Scores With the Rigor and Transparency Index: Large-scale Analysis of Scientific Reporting Quality.采用严谨透明指数建立机构评分:科学报告质量的大规模分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jun 27;24(6):e37324. doi: 10.2196/37324.
5
Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature.肿瘤学研究人员是否遵循可重复和透明的原则?对已发表肿瘤学文献的横断面调查。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 31;9(12):e033962. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033962.
6
Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research.帮助编辑、同行评审人员和作者提高健康研究报告的清晰度、完整性和透明度。
BMC Med. 2008 Jun 16;6:13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-6-13.
7
Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network.透明准确的报告可提高研究的可靠性、实用性和影响力:报告指南和 EQUATOR 网络。
BMC Med. 2010 Apr 26;8:24. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24.
8
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
9
Survey on Scientific Shared Resource Rigor and Reproducibility.科学共享资源严谨性与可重复性调查
J Biomol Tech. 2019 Sep;30(3):36-44. doi: 10.7171/jbt.19-3003-001.
10
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research.呼吁透明报告,以优化临床前研究的预测价值。
Nature. 2012 Oct 11;490(7419):187-91. doi: 10.1038/nature11556.

引用本文的文献

1
Commentary: Comparison of radiological interpretation made by veterinary radiologists and state-of-the-art commercial AI software for canine and feline radiographic studies.评论:兽医放射科医生与用于犬猫X光检查的先进商业人工智能软件的放射学解读比较。
Front Vet Sci. 2025 Jun 25;12:1615947. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1615947. eCollection 2025.
2
Scrutinizing the COVID-19 vaccine safety debate.审视新冠疫苗安全性辩论。
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2024 Dec 31;20(1):2401646. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2401646. Epub 2024 Oct 29.
3
Strengthening a Weak Link: Transparency of Causal Loop Diagrams, Current State and Recommendation.强化薄弱环节:因果循环图的透明度、现状与建议
Syst Dyn Rev. 2023 Nov;40(4). doi: 10.1002/sdr.1753.
4
AI-readiness for Biomedical Data: Bridge2AI Recommendations.生物医学数据的人工智能准备情况:Bridge2AI 建议
bioRxiv. 2024 Nov 24:2024.10.23.619844. doi: 10.1101/2024.10.23.619844.
5
Impact of Different Red Blood Cell Storage Solutions and Conditions on Cell Function and Viability: A Systematic Review.不同红细胞储存液和条件对细胞功能和活力的影响:系统评价。
Biomolecules. 2024 Jul 8;14(7):813. doi: 10.3390/biom14070813.
6
A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials.用于共同创建机器可读数据报告以协调(纳米)材料评估的模板向导。
Nat Protoc. 2024 Sep;19(9):2642-2684. doi: 10.1038/s41596-024-00993-1. Epub 2024 May 16.
7
Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updated .尽管期刊有所意识并进行了更新,但糟糕的统计报告、不充分的数据呈现以及歪曲现象仍然存在。
F1000Res. 2023 Nov 20;12:1483. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.142841.1. eCollection 2023.
8
An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.生物医学科学同行评审过程概述。
Australas Psychiatry. 2024 Jun;32(3):247-251. doi: 10.1177/10398562241231460. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
9
Inappropriate image duplications in rhinology research publications.鼻科学研究出版物中不适当的图像复制。
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024 Jan;14(1):119-122. doi: 10.1002/alr.23226. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
10
Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility.质量产出检查表和内容评估(QuOCCA):一种评估研究质量和可重复性的新工具。
BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 26;12(9):e060976. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060976.

本文引用的文献

1
A manifesto for reproducible science.可重复科学宣言。
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
2
Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies.纳入雌性动物不会增加啮齿类动物研究中的变异性。
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018 Oct;23:143-149. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.06.016. Epub 2018 Aug 2.
3
Four simple ways to increase power without increasing the sample size.在不增加样本量的情况下提高检验效能的四种简单方法。
Lab Anim. 2018 Dec;52(6):621-629. doi: 10.1177/0023677218767478. Epub 2018 Apr 8.
4
What exactly is 'N' in cell culture and animal experiments?细胞培养和动物实验中的“N”到底是什么?
PLoS Biol. 2018 Apr 4;16(4):e2005282. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282. eCollection 2018 Apr.
5
A Guide to Robust Statistical Methods in Neuroscience.神经科学中稳健统计方法指南
Curr Protoc Neurosci. 2018 Jan 22;82:8.42.1-8.42.30. doi: 10.1002/cpns.41.
6
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.关于同行评审中新兴及未来创新的多学科视角。
F1000Res. 2017 Jul 20;6:1151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. eCollection 2017.
7
Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuroscience: what do we gain?将性别作为神经科学中的一个生物学变量纳入研究:我们能得到什么?
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Dec;18(12):707-708. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2017.137. Epub 2017 Nov 3.
8
Data visualization, bar naked: A free tool for creating interactive graphics.数据可视化,一目了然:一款创建交互式图形的免费工具。
J Biol Chem. 2017 Dec 15;292(50):20592-20598. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA117.000147. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
9
Applying the new SABV (sex as a biological variable) policy to research and clinical care.将新的性作为生物学变量(SABV)政策应用于研究和临床护理。
Physiol Behav. 2018 Apr 1;187:2-5. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.08.012. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
10
Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees.性别差异的临床结果与精准医学:机构审查委员会和研究伦理委员会的重要新角色
Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 21;8:488. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00488. eCollection 2017.