Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Hartung_2-dtknemkfo4ux2.pdf
Hartung_2-dtknemkfo4ux2.pdfGröße: 1.35 MBDownloads: 369
Datum
2019
Autor:innen
De Vries, Rob
Hogberg, Helena T.
Smirnova, Lena
Tsaioun, Katya
Whaley, Paul
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
EU-Projektnummer
DFG-Projektnummer
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX. 2019, 36(1), pp. 3-17. ISSN 1868-596X. eISSN 1868-8551. Available under: doi: 10.14573/altex.1812191
Zusammenfassung

A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting - in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a "Wild West" or "anything goes" attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the "reproducibility crisis" discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as "big data" and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
570 Biowissenschaften, Biologie
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690HARTUNG, Thomas, Rob DE VRIES, Sebastian HOFFMANN, Helena T. HOGBERG, Lena SMIRNOVA, Katya TSAIOUN, Paul WHALEY, Marcel LEIST, 2019. Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. In: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX. 2019, 36(1), pp. 3-17. ISSN 1868-596X. eISSN 1868-8551. Available under: doi: 10.14573/altex.1812191
BibTex
@article{Hartung2019Towar-44642,
  year={2019},
  doi={10.14573/altex.1812191},
  title={Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards},
  number={1},
  volume={36},
  issn={1868-596X},
  journal={Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX},
  pages={3--17},
  author={Hartung, Thomas and De Vries, Rob and Hoffmann, Sebastian and Hogberg, Helena T. and Smirnova, Lena and Tsaioun, Katya and Whaley, Paul and Leist, Marcel}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/44642">
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting - in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a "Wild West" or "anything goes" attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the "reproducibility crisis" discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as "big data" and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:creator>Whaley, Paul</dc:creator>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/44642/1/Hartung_2-dtknemkfo4ux2.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Hogberg, Helena T.</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Hartung, Thomas</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Hoffmann, Sebastian</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Hoffmann, Sebastian</dc:contributor>
    <dc:contributor>Smirnova, Lena</dc:contributor>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:issued>2019</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:creator>Tsaioun, Katya</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
    <dc:creator>De Vries, Rob</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Hogberg, Helena T.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:contributor>De Vries, Rob</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:contributor>Whaley, Paul</dc:contributor>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:creator>Smirnova, Lena</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2019-01-21T12:23:39Z</dcterms:available>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:contributor>Leist, Marcel</dc:contributor>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2019-01-21T12:23:39Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/44642/1/Hartung_2-dtknemkfo4ux2.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Leist, Marcel</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Hartung, Thomas</dc:creator>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/44642"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dcterms:title>Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Tsaioun, Katya</dc:contributor>
    <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Ja