{"id":23633,"date":"2019-08-01T15:18:39","date_gmt":"2019-08-01T09:18:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/?p=23633"},"modified":"2023-01-06T18:26:49","modified_gmt":"2023-01-06T12:26:49","slug":"preproducibility-preceeds-reproducibility-in-research-in-your-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/preproducibility-preceeds-reproducibility-in-research-in-your-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Preproducibility Preceeds Reproducibility in Research"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reproducibility<\/a> is vital to research practice. Fundamentally, it means that different researchers use the same method, under the same conditions, and they should get similar results. Reproducibility is the only thing that an investigator can guarantee about a study<\/strong>. In addition,\u00a0 it ensures transparency and helps in understanding the research methods used in the study.<\/p>\n

Research published in journals should be reproducible. However, many articles do not provide enough information for the work to be reproduced elsewhere. Leaving out important information also means that reviewers cannot assess whether or not the study is reproducible<\/a>. This dramatically reduces the scientific value of the work.<\/p>\n

What is Preproducibility?<\/h2>\n

Until recently, there has been no word to describe research that is not reproducible due to a lack of information. In an article in Nature<\/em><\/a>, Philip Stark suggests a new term: preproducibility.<\/strong><\/p>\n

An experiment is preproducible if the author has given enough accurate information for others to repeat it. Stark compares a preproducible report with a recipe. He explains: To bake a loaf of bread, we need more than just a list of ingredients. We also need to know how those ingredients are combined and treated. Preproducibility can be described as a \u201cscientific recipe.\u201d If the recipe gives enough detail, anyone should be able to follow it and get a similar result.<\/p>\n

What Happens When Research is Not Preproducible?<\/h2>\n

In some areas of science, as little as 25% of research papers are reproducible. This can have serious consequences. Failing to include enough detail in a report can waste researchers\u2019 money and effort. In medicine, irreproducible research can delay treatments, as they cannot be proven. This wastes the valuable time of both patients and doctors.<\/p>\n

Peer reviewers struggle to review papers that are not preproducible. How can reviewers assess an article when it is impossible to check whether the work can be reproduced? As Stark says, \u201cScience should be \u2018show me,\u2019 not \u2018trust me.\u2019\u201d At worst, research that is not preproducible could destroy confidence in the scientific process.<\/p>\n

How to Report Research<\/h2>\n

Research must be reported in a systematic, organized way to ensure preproducibility. This helps reviewers to evaluate the work and allows other researchers to reproduce the study.<\/p>\n

Stark says that he will always publish his raw data (where possible) and the software he has used. This is an excellent start.<\/p>\n

Stark also suggests<\/a> several points that researchers should include when writing a paper\/thesis. These should answer any questions a reader might have about how to repeat the research.<\/p>\n

Some of the points to consider:<\/p>\n