Difference between revisions of "2.4 Reporting"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
** failure of a positive or negative control does not justify failing to disclose the repetition | ** failure of a positive or negative control does not justify failing to disclose the repetition | ||
| − | This core requirement applies to both [[2.4.1 Non-public reporting]] and scientific [[2.4. | + | This core requirement applies to both [[2.4.1 Non-public reporting]] and scientific [[2.4.2 Publication]]s. |
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* maintain a central (for a research unit) list of studies planned and completed | * maintain a central (for a research unit) list of studies planned and completed | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | == C. Resources == | ||
| + | to be added | ||
Revision as of 17:31, 5 September 2020
A. Background & Definitions
This Toolbox item refers to one of the Core Requirements (Core Requirement 9 - "Reported data must disclose all repetitions of a study, an experiment, or a test regardless of the outcome").
There is no formal definition what "repetition" is. One has to acknowledge that there are often methodological differences between two or more consecutive repetitions of a study that may be too significant to be considered as repetitions.
EQIPD offers the following basic guidance on how to define repetitions:
Repetitions are studies, experiments or tests that:
- answer the same research question (even if this involves certain variations in the study conditions, experimental variables and outcomes)
- are run consecutively
- are technically valid (i.e. no documented failure of hardware, software, research tool or reagent)
- failure of positive or negative control may usually not be recognized as a technical failure justifying the exclusion of a repetition from being disclosed
- failure of a positive or negative control may justify declaring the test results not valid, but
- failure of a positive or negative control does not justify failing to disclose the repetition
This core requirement applies to both 2.4.1 Non-public reporting and scientific 2.4.2 Publications.
B. Guidance & Expectations
In all cases, it is up to scientists to decide whether a study (experiment, test) was repeated or not, and, if yes, decide whether reports should disclose data for all repetitions or simply acknowledge the repetitions.
EQIPD expects that a Process Owner conducts regular spot checks on non-public reports and manuscripts prepared for journal submission to make sure that all repetitions are disclosed.
It is up to a Process Owner to decide which method is used to make sure that she/he can identify all repetitions of a study, e.g.:
- use a common 2.1.2 Unique study ID for all repetitions
- add to a repetition study plan reference(s) to previous studies
- maintain a central (for a research unit) list of studies planned and completed
C. Resources
to be added
back to Toolbox
Next item: 2.4.1 Non-public reporting
