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
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) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jp280389 · Cited by 593
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) · BMC Veterinary Research · doi:10.1186/s12917-020-02451-y · Cited by 496
Toward Benchmarking in Catalysis Science: Best Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities
Bligaard, T., Bullock, R. M., Campbell, C. T., Chen, J. G., Gates, B. C., Gorte, R. J., Jones, C. W., Jones, W. D., Kitchin, J. R., & Scott, S. L. (2016) · ACS Catalysis · doi:10.1021/acscatal.6b00183 · Cited by 285
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) · BMJ Open Science · doi:10.1136/bmjos-2020-100115 · Cited by 373
CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015: explanation and elaboration
Shamseer, L., Sampson, M., Bukutu, C., Schmid, C. H., Nikles, J., Tate, R. L., Johnston, B. C., Zucker, D. R., Shadish, W. R., Kravitz, R. L., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.018 · Cited by 145
CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement.
Vohra, S., Shamseer, L., Sampson, M., Bukutu, C., Schmid, C. H., Tate, R. L., Nikles, J., Zucker, D. R., Kravitz, R. L., Guyatt, G. H., et al. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.004 · Cited by 36
Quantifying Reproducibility in Computational Biology: The Case of the Tuberculosis Drugome
Garijo, D., Kinnings, S., Xie, L., Xie, L., Zhang, Y., Bourne, P. E., & Gil, Y. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080278 · Cited by 120
General Principles of Preclinical Study Design
Huang, W., du Sert, N. P., Vollert, J., & Rice, A. S. C. (2019) · Handbook of experimental pharmacology · doi:10.1007/164_2019_277 · Cited by 114
Improved reproducibility by assuring confidence in measurements in biomedical research
Plant, A. L., Locascio, L. E., May, W. E., & Gallagher, P. D. (2014) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.3076 · Cited by 89
Animal Models in Translational Research: Rosetta Stone or Stumbling Block?
Bolker, J. A. (2017) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201700089 · Cited by 71
Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science
Jamieson, K. H. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708276114 · Cited by 72
Expert curation in UniProtKB: a case study on dealing with conflicting and erroneous data
Poux, S., Magrane, M., Arighi, C. N., Bridge, A. J., O’Donovan, C., & Laiho, K. (2014) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/bau016 · Cited by 67
The reproducibility of biomedical research: Sleepers awake!
Bustin, S. A. (2014) · Biomolecular Detection and Quantification · doi:10.1016/j.bdq.2015.01.002 · Cited by 62
Romero, R. J., Kadar, N. R., Miranda, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Schwartz, A. G., Chaemsaithong, P., Rogers, W. T., Soto, E., Gotsch, F., Yeo, L., et al. (2013) · The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.844123 · Cited by 52
Scientific rigor and the art of motorcycle maintenance
Munafò, M., Noble, S., Browne, W. J., Brunner, D., Button, K., Ferreira, J., Holmans, P., Langbehn, D., Lewis, G., Lindquist, M., et al. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3004 · Cited by 43
Gonzalez-Beltran, A. N., Li, P., Zhao, J., Ávila-García, M. S., Roos, M., Thompson, M., van der Horst, E., Kaliyaperumal, R., Luo, R., Lee, T., et al. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127612 · Cited by 45
Role of Environment and Experimenter in Reproducibility of Behavioral Studies With Laboratory Mice
Nigri, M., Åhlgren, J., Wolfer, D. P., & Võikar, V. (2022) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2022.835444 · Cited by 43
How measurement science can improve confidence in research results
Plant, A. L., Becker, C. A., Hanisch, R. J., Boisvert, R. F., Possolo, A. M., & Elliott, J. T. (2018) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004299 · Cited by 35
Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
Mullane, K., & Williams, M. (2017) · Biochemical Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2017.04.008 · Cited by 28
Advancements in RNASeqGUI towards a Reproducible Analysis of RNA-Seq Experiments
Russo, F., Righelli, D., & Angelini, C. (2016) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2016/7972351 · Cited by 27
Hettne, K. M., Dharuri, H. K., Zhao, J., Wolstencroft, K., Belhajjame, K., Soiland‐Reyes, S., Mina, E., Thompson, M., Cruickshank, D. G., Verdes-Montenegro, L. L., et al. (2014) · Journal of Biomedical Semantics · doi:10.1186/2041-1480-5-41 · Cited by 26
Improving the reliability of peer-reviewed publications: We are all in it together
Bustin, S. A., & Nolan, T. (2016) · Biomolecular Detection and Quantification · doi:10.1016/j.bdq.2015.11.002 · Cited by 22
Guidelines for standardizing and increasing the transparency in the reporting of biomedical research
Khan, A. M. (2017) · Journal of Thoracic Disease · doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.07.30 · Cited by 21
Reproducibility of biomedical research – The importance of editorial vigilance
Bustin, S. A., & Huggett, J. F. (2017) · Biomolecular Detection and Quantification · doi:10.1016/j.bdq.2017.01.002 · Cited by 19
The Role of the IACUC in the Absence of Regulatory Guidance
Leland, S. E., Straeter, P., & Gnadt, B. J. (2019) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar/ilz003 · Cited by 16
Design and Sampling Plan Optimization for RT-qPCR Experiments in Plants: A Case Study in Blueberry
Die, J. V., Román, B., Flores, F., & Rowland, L. J. (2016) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00271 · Cited by 14
Using ReproZip for Reproducibility and Library Services
Steeves, V., Rampin, R., & Chirigati, F. (2017) · IASSIST Quarterly · doi:10.29173/iq18 · Cited by 11
Statistical Guidance for Reviewers of Toxicologic Pathology
Shockley, K. R., & Kissling, G. E. (2018) · Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1177/0192623318785097 · Cited by 10
Russo, F., Righelli, D., & Angelini, C. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44332-4_19 · Cited by 10
Zhang, H., Maillo, A., Khan, S. A., Martinez‐de‐Morentin, X., Lehmann, R., Gómez-Cabrero, D., & Tegner, J. N. (2024) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.034 · Cited by 5
Guidelines and Initiatives for Good Research Practice
Kabitzke, P., Cheng, K., & Altevogt, B. M. (2019) · Handbook of experimental pharmacology · doi:10.1007/164_2019_275 · Cited by 4
Details Matter, and so Do Statistics
Sweedler, J. V. (2013) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac4014513
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
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.
