Refuge behind explanations of compartmentalization, genetic differences in germ lines, dietary

Refuge behind explanations of compartmentalization, genetic differences in germ lines, dietary alterations, media differences, etc. While some of these may account for the observed differences, often times it is conceivable that the original paper had some loopholes that were not obvious at the time of publication. Consider the flip side–if a published finding Rocaglamide A supplement cannot be repeated and there is no published knowledge about this, numerous hours and resources are wasted as different laboratories try to glean this information for themselves. In some cases this could have far reaching consequences, including altering the policies of regulatory agencies (see below). It is true that corrigenda are published if a gross error is made, but these are often buried and garner less attention. Therefore, we posit that Physiological Reports, with its easy access and turn around, should continue to be a venue to submit such replicative findings. As we were having this discussion, we recognize that Nature Biotechnology recently published an article with negative findings that refuted a published paper in Cell Research (Nature Biotechnology, 2013). The original finding reported the presence of journal.pone.0174109 plant microRNAs in human plasma and had far reaching consequences, including causing the Food Standards Australia New Zealand to publish a position statement on genetically modified crops. As outlined in the Nature Biotechnology editorial, there is an increasing interest by industry and funding organizations to provide opportunities, including commissioning studies, to evaluate reproducibility. The importance of being able to replicate studies is also moving to the top of the agenda of funders such as NIHR and pharmaceutical companies. Several recent studies show the irreproducibility of many Ixazomib citrate web important experiments, again as noted in a Nature editorial (Wadman 2013), “In a 2011 internal survey, the pharmaceutical firm Bayer HealthCare of Leverkusen, Germany, was unable to validate the relevant preclinical research for almost two-thirds of 67 in-house projects. Then, in 2012, scientists at Amgen, a drug company based in Thousand Oaks,2014 | Vol. 2 | Iss. 3 | e00273 Page?2014 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.EditorialCalifornia, reported their failure to replicate 89 of the findings from 53 landmark cancer papers.” This has caught the attention of the popular press both in the Economist (2013) and in the New York Times Sunday Review (Chwe 2014); researchers are urged to confront our “biases.” As scientists and authors jmir.6472 should we not welcome increased opportunities to contribute to the validation of important data and findings? We at Physiological Reports would like to encourage our readership to include in their papers, where germane, their experiences with replicating the findings of others. Documenting in a sentence or two a positive replication and having a more nuanced discussion of negative findings would be of great use to the readership. We count on the integrity of our authors to submit their confirmatory studies with the context of why the information is important, and negative findings in a constructive andcritical format that would engender heal.Refuge behind explanations of compartmentalization, genetic differences in germ lines, dietary alterations, media differences, etc. While some of these may account for the observed differences, often times it is conceivable that the original paper had some loopholes that were not obvious at the time of publication. Consider the flip side–if a published finding cannot be repeated and there is no published knowledge about this, numerous hours and resources are wasted as different laboratories try to glean this information for themselves. In some cases this could have far reaching consequences, including altering the policies of regulatory agencies (see below). It is true that corrigenda are published if a gross error is made, but these are often buried and garner less attention. Therefore, we posit that Physiological Reports, with its easy access and turn around, should continue to be a venue to submit such replicative findings. As we were having this discussion, we recognize that Nature Biotechnology recently published an article with negative findings that refuted a published paper in Cell Research (Nature Biotechnology, 2013). The original finding reported the presence of journal.pone.0174109 plant microRNAs in human plasma and had far reaching consequences, including causing the Food Standards Australia New Zealand to publish a position statement on genetically modified crops. As outlined in the Nature Biotechnology editorial, there is an increasing interest by industry and funding organizations to provide opportunities, including commissioning studies, to evaluate reproducibility. The importance of being able to replicate studies is also moving to the top of the agenda of funders such as NIHR and pharmaceutical companies. Several recent studies show the irreproducibility of many important experiments, again as noted in a Nature editorial (Wadman 2013), “In a 2011 internal survey, the pharmaceutical firm Bayer HealthCare of Leverkusen, Germany, was unable to validate the relevant preclinical research for almost two-thirds of 67 in-house projects. Then, in 2012, scientists at Amgen, a drug company based in Thousand Oaks,2014 | Vol. 2 | Iss. 3 | e00273 Page?2014 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.EditorialCalifornia, reported their failure to replicate 89 of the findings from 53 landmark cancer papers.” This has caught the attention of the popular press both in the Economist (2013) and in the New York Times Sunday Review (Chwe 2014); researchers are urged to confront our “biases.” As scientists and authors jmir.6472 should we not welcome increased opportunities to contribute to the validation of important data and findings? We at Physiological Reports would like to encourage our readership to include in their papers, where germane, their experiences with replicating the findings of others. Documenting in a sentence or two a positive replication and having a more nuanced discussion of negative findings would be of great use to the readership. We count on the integrity of our authors to submit their confirmatory studies with the context of why the information is important, and negative findings in a constructive andcritical format that would engender heal.