Search
Search Menu

No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis

Inappropriate practices of science, such as HARKing, p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results, have been suggested as causes of irreproducibility. In this editorial, the Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, Tsuyoshi Miyakawa, proposed that a lack of raw data or data fabrication is another possible cause of irreproducibility:
Since 2017, Tsuyoshi Miyakawa has made 41 editorial decisions categorized as “Revise before review,” requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts. Furthermore, 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts were rejected because of insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, at least in some portions of these cases.
Considering that any scientific study should be based on raw data, and that data storage space should no longer be a challenge, Miyakawa argues that journals, in principle, should try to have their authors publicize raw data in a public database or journal site upon the publication of the paper to increase reproducibility of the published results.

LINK

Share this

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll Up