Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
By B. Alberts, Marc Kirschner, S. Tilghman, H. Varmus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014
719 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/30f86c905a48f57ca0443032fbb793aa07d976b2
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Biomedical Engineering
In General Health Professions
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Citations in the corpus
- Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology (2014, background): “Among these are the relative strengths of the incentives offered to researchers for undertaking marginal improvements on existing studies rather than risk-taking and original research (Alberts et al. 2014), and for their capacity to produce statistically significant results rather than for their abi”
- An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research (2014, positive): “Incentives for scientific achievement prioritize innovation over replication (Alberts et al., 2014; Nosek, et al., 2012).”
- An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist (2015, result): “debates over the trade-offs between investing in more conservative projects with predictable results versus more innovative research, including projects involving more real-world samples that could result in greater public health impact [5].”