Survey of Core Facilities shows the importance of communication and management for optimal research quality
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] R. Pepperkok,et al. Institutional core facilities: prerequisite for breakthroughs in the life sciences , 2016, EMBO reports.
[2] John P. A. Ioannidis,et al. A manifesto for reproducible science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.
[3] L. Freedman,et al. Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities , 2017, bioRxiv.
[4] Rebecca L Hegstad-Davies,et al. Survey on Scientific Shared Resource Rigor and Reproducibility. , 2019, Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT.
[5] F. Prinz,et al. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.
[6] D. A. Eisner. Reproducibility of science: Fraud, impact factors and carelessness , 2017, Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology.
[7] Jordan M. Malof,et al. Distributed solar photovoltaic array location and extent dataset for remote sensing object identification , 2016, Scientific Data.
[8] J. Ioannidis. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.
[9] U. Dirnagl,et al. Quality management for academic laboratories: burden or boon? , 2018, EMBO reports.
[10] M. Baker. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility , 2016, Nature.
[11] Brian A. Nosek,et al. Promoting an open research culture , 2015, Science.
[12] Richard McElreath,et al. The natural selection of bad science , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.
[13] Brian A. Nosek,et al. Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[14] Erik Schultes,et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.