Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jan 1;20(1):125-7. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000972. Epub 2012 Oct 4.

Scientific research in the age of omics: the good, the bad, and the sloppy.

Author information

1
Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. dwitten@u.washington.edu

Abstract

It has been claimed that most research findings are false, and it is known that large-scale studies involving omics data are especially prone to errors in design, execution, and analysis. The situation is alarming because taxpayer dollars fund a substantial amount of biomedical research, and because the publication of a research article that is later determined to be flawed can erode the credibility of an entire field, resulting in a severe and negative impact for years to come. Here, we urge the development of an online, open-access, postpublication, peer review system that will increase the accountability of scientists for the quality of their research and the ability of readers to distinguish good from sloppy science.

PMID:
23037799
PMCID:
PMC3555320
DOI:
10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000972
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center