Rethinking research reproducibility
Open accessThe 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
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?
Cutting-edge discovery is unavoidably associated with a high rate of false positive results.
“Dirnagel recently cautioned that cutting-edge discovery is unavoidably associated with a high rate of false positive results (Dirnagl, 2019).”
From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Dirnagl, 2019
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
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · see citing works
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Baker, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/533452a · Cited by 4,209 · 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A conceptual framework for “reproducibil-ity” was laid out by Goodman et al (2016), which discriminates between three basic concepts: (i) Methods reproducibility, which requires that procedures of a study must be described in such detail that an expert can faithfully repeat it.”
Small Telescopes: Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results
Simonsohn, U. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614567341 · Cited by 742 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Popper K (1935) Logik der Forschung. Berlin: Springer
- Yarborough M, Bredenoord A, D'Abramo F, Joyce NC, Kimmelman J, Ogbogu U, Sena E, Strech D, Dirnagl U (2018) The bench is closer to the bedside than we think: uncovering the ethical ties between preclinical researchers in translational neuroscience and patients in clinical trials. PLoS Biol 16: e2006343 ª 2018 The Author The EMBO Journal 38: e101117 | 2019
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards
Hirsch, C., & Schildknecht, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01484 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery
Dirnagl, U. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000690 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citationRefining animal research: The Animal Study Registry
Bert, B., Heinl, C., Chmielewska, J., Schwarz, F., Grune, B., Hensel, A., Greiner, M., & Schönfelder, G. (2019) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000463 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dirnagl, U.
- Affiliations
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Dirnagl, Ulrich
- ORCID
- Dirnagl, Ulrich
- Venue
- The EMBO Journal
- Published
- 2018-12-05
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0261-4189 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2075
- PMC
- PMC6331711
- OpenAlex
- W2903132541
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 6.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The EMBO Journal (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Keywords
- research reproducibility, replication, Karl Popper, publication incentives, exploratory research, biomedical research
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Ethics, Research, Biomedical Research
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
