The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Enhancing reproducibility
Open accessAbstract
New reporting standards for Nature journal authors are intended to improve transparency and reproducibility.
Overview
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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 [57]
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.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 · Cited by 5,939
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Experimental Physiology · doi:10.1113/ep088870 · Cited by 3,549
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research*
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1177/0271678x20943823 · Cited by 1,443
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.15193 · Cited by 1,081
The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/703181 · Cited by 1,036
Metadata
- Venue
- Nature Methods
- Published
- 2013-04-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 367-367
- ISSN
- 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-7105
- OpenAlex
- W4237175910
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Keywords
- reproducibility, research transparency, reporting guidelines, scholarly publishing, Nature journal
- MeSH terms
- Research, Reproducibility of Results
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enhancing reproducibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nmeth.2471
- The paper
- Enhancing reproducibility. (2013). Nature Methods. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2471
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
