The push to replicate findings could shelve promising research and unfairly damage the reputations of careful, meticulous scientists, says Mina Bissell.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
202,72 € per year
only 3,97 € per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
39,95 €
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Naik, G. 'Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results' The Wall Street Journal (2 December 2011); available at http://go.nature.com/aqopc3.
Nature Med. 18, 1443 (2012).
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).
Wadman, M. Nature 500, 14–16 (2013).
Nature 496, 398 (2013).
Barcellos-Hoff, M. H., Aggeler, J., Ram, T. G. & Bissell, M. J. Development 105, 223–235 (1989).
Petersen, O. W., Rønnov-Jessen, L., Howlett, A. R. & Bissell, M. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 9064–9068 (1992).
Onodera, Y., Nam, J.-M. & Bissell, M. J. J. Clin. Invest. (in the press).
Ordinario, E. et al. PLoS ONE 7, e51786 (2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work 2013-May-22
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bissell, M. Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive. Nature 503, 333–334 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/503333a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/503333a
