The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Questions were based on existing reporting guidelines [6, 13, 25, 30], journal checklists [32] and previous studies on quality of reporting [19, 40], and are presented along with their response options on Table S1.”
From Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility
Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/505612a · Cited by 1,247
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
Zuo, X., & Xing, X.-X. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.05.009 · Cited by 678
How to measure and evaluate binding affinities
Jarmoskaite, I., AlSadhan, I., Vaidyanathan, P. P., & Herschlag, D. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.57264 · Cited by 514
Making big data open: data sharing in neuroimaging
Poldrack, R. A., & Gorgolewski, K. J. (2014) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3818 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 496
- Issue
- 7446
- Pages
- 398-398
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W4237866497
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- research reproducibility, research reliability, peer review, publication practices, research integrity, scientific journals
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
