Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research
In this editorial Hilda Bastian, Scientist and Editor, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, US, discusses the many different ways to respond to published research and highlights possible barriers to the success of post-publication commentaries.
She concludes by stating that “passive consumption of scientific papers, and the withholding of adequate information by authors, cannot advance science. Thinking and talking about our responses to research reports is still science’s vibrant and compelling intellectual core. Capturing that post-publication intellectual effort more rigorously is essential for better science”.
Read the editorial published in PLOS Medicine.
Read Hilda’s blog: statistically-funny.blogspot.co.uk
How can reporting quality interfere with reproducibility issues and overall trust in science results? With that question in mind, we participated in the Reproducibility, Replicability and Trust in Science conference organised by the Wellcome Genome Campus from 9 to 11...