English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Widespread reports of failures to replicate have undermined confidence in published scientific findings. This is especially critical for preclinical studies that were seen as steppingstones to novel therapies. Recognizing the importance of publishing replication studies and reporting negative data, eNeuro will consider such articles; failed preclinical tests are especially welcomed. Here, I consider how failures to replicate should be interpreted and suggest possible new journal practices.“Rhumba” is a collection term for a group of rattlesnakes, and there is growing concern about a rhumba of “R’s” (replication, reproducibility, rigor, robustness), AKA, the “replication/reproducibility crisis”. Widespread reports of failures to replicate key findings have undermined public confidence in scientific research. Concerns about lack of reproducibility have led to initiatives by scientific societies, journals, and funding agencies to improve scientific rigor with the assumption that this will improve reproducibility.One of the explicit editorial policies of eNeuro is to consider articles reporting negative results and failures to replicate; failed preclinical tests are especially welcomed. Given this, it’s important to consider how one should interpret failures to replicate when they are published.The first thing to emphasize is that a failure to replicate doesn’t mean that there is any suspicion of scientific misconduct. A failure to replicate a study published in a peer-reviewed journal simply means that similar results were not found. There are many reasons why this may be the case including that the initial study is correct and the replication study is flawed. Thus, a failure to replicate is simply a call to attention that there is a discrepancy.When fundamental biological findings are not replicated, science will hopefully self-correct eventually (but see, Ioannidis, 2012). In the interim, faulty conclusions impede the advancement of knowledge and may lead to further faulty conclusions. In studies involving animal models of diseases or disorders, …

A Rhumba of “R’s”: Replication, Reproducibility, Rigor, Robustness: What Does a Failure to Replicate Mean?