Acknowledging and Overcoming Nonreproducibility in Basic and Preclinical Research
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reproducibility checks in preclinical biomedical research have yielded very low rates of successful replication.
“Allowing for these caveats, reproducibility checks in preclinical biomedical research have yielded very low rates of successful replication.”
From How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
Among the first five highly cited studies assessed in the Reproducibility: Cancer Biology project, only two could be reproduced as originally planned.
“the first released results of the Reproducibility: Cancer Biology project8,11 have shown that among the first five highly cited studies assessed only two could be reproduced as originally planned.”
From How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
Cites
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Baker, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/533452a · Cited by 4,209 · see citing works
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · see citing works
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
What does research reproducibility mean?
Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 · Cited by 1,293 · see citing works
Self-citationPolicy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility
Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/505612a · Cited by 1,247 · see citing works
Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research
Begley, C. G., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.114.303819 · Cited by 1,035 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049 · Cited by 655 · see citing works
Self-citationAn open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research
Errington, T. M., Iorns, E., Gunn, W., Tan, F. E., Lomax, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2014) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.04333 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.23383 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure
Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Self-citationRice, D. B., Raffoul, H., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Moher, D. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m2081 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Self-citationIoannidis, J. P. A., Kim, B. Y. S., & Trounson, A. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0314-y · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Ioannidis, J. P. A.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ioannidis, John P. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2017-03-14
- Volume
- 317
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1019
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2587881276
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13
- FWCI
- 21.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- reproducibility, preclinical research, basic research, research integrity, scientific rigor
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Selection Bias, Publication Bias, Peer Review, Research, Biomedical Research, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
