Survey of Core Facilities shows the importance of communication and management for optimal research quality

Recently, it has become evident that academic research faces issues with the reproducibility of research data. It is critical to understand the underlying causes in order to remedy this situation. Core Facilities (CFs) have a central position in the research infrastructure and therefore they are ideally suited to promote and disseminate good research standards through their users. However, there are currently no clear guidelines directly applicable to academic CFs. To identify the most important factors for research quality, we polled 253 CFs across Europe about their practices and analysed in detail the interaction process between CFs and their users, from the first contact to the publication of the results. Although the survey showed that CFs are dedicated to train and advise their users, it highlighted the following areas, the improvement of which would directly increase research quality: 1) motivating users to follow the advice and procedures for best research practice, 2) providing clear guidance on data management practices, 3) improving communication along the whole research process and 4) clearly defining the responsibilities of each party.

[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.