Making sense of replications
Open accessAbstract
The first results from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology suggest that there is scope for improving reproducibility in pre-clinical cancer research.
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
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?
Among the first five highly cited studies assessed in the Reproducibility: Cancer Biology project, only two could be reproduced as originally planned.
“the first released results of the Reproducibility: Cancer Biology project8,11 have shown that among the first five highly cited studies assessed only two could be reproduced as originally planned.”
From How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation (2018) · cites this paper as [11]
Reproducibility checks in preclinical biomedical research have yielded very low rates of successful replication.
“Allowing for these caveats, reproducibility checks in preclinical biomedical research have yielded very low rates of successful replication.”
From How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation (2018) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 242
- Authors
- Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Center for Open Science (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nosek, Brian A
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2017-01-19
- Volume
- 6
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5245957
- OpenAlex
- W2575775275
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 34
- FWCI
- 57.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Laura and John Arnold Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- research reproducibility, replication study, preclinical cancer research, tumor biology
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Neoplasms, 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
