Cited by 83Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing

Open access
Prager, Eric M., Chambers, Karen E., Plotkin, Joshua L., McArthur, David L., Bandrowski, Anita E., Bansal, Nidhi, Martone, Maryann E., Bergstrom, Hadley C. +2 more·2019·Journal of Neuroscience Research

Abstract

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jnr.24340

Cites

98 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Journals usually share a common objective of improving the methodological rigour and reproducibility of the research they publish, but different journals emphasise different pieces of information.

    “Journals usually share a common objective of improving the methodological rigour and reproducibility of the research they publish, but different journals emphasise different pieces of information [56–58].”

    From The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research (2020) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Introduction says publishers and editors seek greater transparency and reproducibility, and gives Cell Press’s STAR Methods and JNR’s Transparent Science Questionnaire as examples of journal reporting tools. The paper does not establish that different journals emphasise different pieces of information; it shows that they use different tools. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Baker M (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature, 533, 452– 454. 27225100

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prager, E. M., Chambers, K. E., Plotkin, J. L., McArthur, D. L., Bandrowski, A. E., Bansal, N., Martone, M. E., Bergstrom, H. C., Bespalov, A., & Graf, C.
Affiliations
  • John Wiley & Sons (United States) (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Vassar College (US)
  • First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg (RU)
  • John Wiley & Sons (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Prager, Eric M.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-02
Volume
97
Issue
4
Pages
377-390
ISSN
  • 0360-4012 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4547
OpenAlex
W3043305063
Cited by
83
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5
FWCI
30.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European College of Neuropsychopharmacology
  • National Institutes of Health (5u24da039832-02)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (U24-DA039832)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • 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
research transparency, scientific rigor, research reporting, reporting guidelines, experimental design, statistical reporting, data visualization, peer review, reproducibility, manuscript preparation
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Humans, Publishing, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, 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