Search
Menu
All issues Volume 5 (2022) 4open, 5 (2022) 9 References
Open Access
Issue
4open
Volume 5, 2022
Article Number 9
Number of page(s) 7
Section Life Sciences - Medicine
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/fopen/2022009
Published online 13 May 2022
  1. Prager EM, Chambers KE, Plotkin JL, McArthur DL, Bandrowski AE, Bansal N, Martone ME, Bergstrom HC, Bespalov A, Graf C (2019), Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. J Neuro Res 97, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24340. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010), Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8, e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Wurbel H (2020), The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 18, e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M (2014), CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 17, 301–304. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.136338. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Yosten GLC, Adams JC, Bennett CN, Bunnett NW, Scheman R, Sigmund CD, Yates BJ, Zucker IH, Samson WK (2018), Revised guidelines to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of research published in American Physiological Society journals. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 315, R1251–R1253. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00274.2018. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Emmerich CH, Harris CM (2019), Minimum information and quality standards for conducting, reporting, and organizing in vitro research. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology 257, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2019_284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brooks HL, Lindsey ML (2018), Guidelines for authors and reviewers on antibody use in physiology studies. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 314, H724–H732. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00512.2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gilda JE, Ghosh R, Cheah JX, West TM, Bodine SC, Gomes AV (2015), Western Blotting inaccuracies with unverified antibodies: need for a Western Blotting Minimal Reporting Standard (WBMRS). PLoS ONE 10, e0135392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135392. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tuncalp O, Straus SE (2018), PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169, 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E (2018), Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H (2020), Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 18, 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gosselin RD (2020), Statistical analysis must improve to address the reproducibility crisis: The ACcess to Transparent Statistics (ACTS) call to action. Bioessays 42, e1900189. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201900189. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pawitan Y, Michiels S, Koscielny S, Gusnanto A, Ploner A (2005), False discovery rate, sensitivity and sample size for microarray studies. Bioinformatics 21, 3017–3024. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti448. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Krzywinski M, Altman N (2014), Points of significance: Nonparametric tests. Nat Methods 11, 467–468. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2937. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Avey MT, Moher D, Sullivan KJ, Fergusson D, Griffin G, Grimshaw JM, Hutton B, Lalu MM, Macleod M, Marshall J, Mei SH, Rudnicki M, Stewart DJ, Turgeon AF, McIntyre L, Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology G (2016), The devil is in the details: incomplete reporting in preclinical animal research. PLoS One 11, e0166733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166733. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gosselin RD (2021), Insufficient transparency of statistical reporting in preclinical research: a scoping review. Nature 11, 3335. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83006-5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Weissgerber TL, Garcia-Valencia O, Garovic VD, Milic NM, Winham SJ (2018), Why we need to report more than “Data were Analyzed by t-tests or ANOVA”. Elife 7, e36163, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36163. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Reynolds PS (2022), Between two stools: preclinical research, reproducibility, and statistical design of experiments. BMC Res. Notes 15, 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05965-w. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Morton JP (2009), Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know? Adv Physiol Educ 33, 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90207.2008. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cobo E, Selva-O’Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M (2007), Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2, e332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000332. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kawczak S, Mustafa S (2020), Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit. BMJ Open 10, e039687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039687. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V, Noel-Storr A, Dooley G, Ballarini N, Konig F (2020), Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 121, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Buhn S, Pieper D (2019), Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 19, 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stoll CRT, Izadi S, Fowler S, Green P, Suls J, Colditz GA (2019), The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 10, 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1369. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.