ACADEMIA AND CLINIC
Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust
Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy Editor;
Steven N. Goodman, MD, PhD, MHS;
Michael E. Griswold, PhD; and
Harold C. Sox, MD, Editor
20 March 2007 | Volume 146 Issue 6
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
 |
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.
Article
