Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
Originally published on March 5, 2007.
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Full Text of this article
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
All Versions of this Article:
  arrow 146/6/450 (most recent)
  arrow 0000605-200703200-00154v1
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Published comments/rapid response letters
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Laine, C.
space
  arrow  Sox, H. C.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

ACADEMIA AND CLINIC

Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust

right arrow Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy Editor; Steven N. Goodman, MD, PhD, MHS, Associate Editor; Michael E. Griswold, PhD, Associate Editor; and Harold C. Sox, MD, Editor

20 March 2007 | Volume 146 Issue 6 | Pages 450-453

A community of scientists arrives at the truth by independently verifying new observations. In this time-honored process, journals serve 2 principal functions: evaluative and editorial. In their evaluative function, they winnow out research that is unlikely to stand up to independent verification; this task is accomplished by peer review. In their editorial function, they try to ensure transparent (by which we mean clear, complete, and unambiguous) and objective descriptions of the research. Both the evaluative and editorial functions go largely unnoticed by the public—the former only draws public attention when a journal publishes fraudulent research. However, both play a critical role in the progress of science. This paper is about both functions. We describe the evaluative processes we use and announce a new policy to help the scientific community evaluate, and build upon, the research findings that we publish.

Author and Article Information
space

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Drs. Michael Berkwits, Paul Epstein, and Cynthia D. Mulrow for their review of earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

Requests for Single Reprints: Customer Service, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Laine and Sox: Customer Service, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Dr. Goodman: Department of Oncology, Division of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, 550 North Broadway, Suite 1103, Baltimore, MD 21209.

Dr. Griswold: Welch Center, Johns Hopkins University, 2024 E. Monument Street, Baltimore, MD 21205.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BMJHome page
T. P Stossel
Has the hunt for conflicts of interest gone too far? Yes
BMJ, March 1, 2008; 336(7642): 476 - 476.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
The Editors
Annals at 80: Still Young and Still Reaching Out
Ann Intern Med, July 3, 2007; 147(1): 65 - 66.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Medical ethics begins with the educator
Kenneth A Hoekstra
Annals Online, 22 Mar 2007 [Full text]
Additionally turn reviewers into prepublication peer critical appraisers
Anthony Lwegaba, et al.
Annals Online, 28 Mar 2007 [Full text]

 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online 

Copyright © 2007 by the American College of Physicians.