Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

By C. Begley, Lee M. Ellis. Nature, 2012

2,585 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Physiology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a81d3d1e8a983e0551edf485f4ac1a8cdd7fea4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Physiology

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

Facts Are More Important Than Novelty (2014, result): “The concern over replication exists in many research domains, including advertising (Madden et al., 1995), biology (Begley & Ellis, 2012; Powell, 2007), economics (Anderson, Greene, McCullough, & Vinod, 2005; Dewald, Thursby, & Anderson, 1986; Kane, 1984), library sciences (Winters, 1996),…”
How to Make More Published Research True (2014, background): “Pharmaceutical industry teams have championed reproducibility in preclinical research [56,57] because they depend on pre-clinical academic investigations accurately pinpointing useful drug targets.”
An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research (2012, result): “And indeed, recent results from biomedical and cancer research suggest that replication rates are lower than 50%, with some as low as 11% (Begley & Ellis, 2012; Osherovich, 2011; Prinz, Schlange, & Asadullah, 2011).”
A Call for Examining Replication and Bias in Special Education Research (2014, background): “C. G. Begley and Ellis (2012) found that unreplicated studies were cited more frequently, on average, than those with reproduced results.”
How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology? (2013, background): “Finally, evidence from other scientific disciplines indicates that the reproducibility of findings from published articles is shockingly low (e.g., Begley & Ellis, 2012; Ioannidis et al., 2009), likely due to incomplete reporting of relevant statistical information in the published articles…”
ITK: enabling reproducible research and open science (2014, neutral): “The importance of restoring the practice of reproducibility veriﬁcation in scientiﬁc research has resurged in recent years in light of worrisome ﬁndings of inconsistency, lack of quality and even fraud in what were otherwise considered to be high-quality publications (Begley and Ellis, 2012).”
From Big Data to Precision Medicine (2019, neutral): “However, it has been reported that results from a concerning proportion of even the highest ranking scientific articles may not be reproduced [∼11% only were (30)].”
Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science (2012, background): “…several large pharmaceutical companies revealed that their efforts to replicate exciting preclinical findings from published academic studies in cancer biology were only rarely verifying the original results (Begley & Ellis, 2012; see also Osherovich, 2011; Prinz, Schlange, & Asadullah, 2011).”
Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings (2017, result): “For example, scholars report an inability to replicate the findings of seminal studies (e.g. Begley and Ellis, 2012; Ioannidis, 2012), leading some to suggest a possible credibility crisis may exist in science (e.g. Baker, 2012; Carpenter, 2012; Cortina et al., 2017).”