Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories.

Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories.

Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories. SIGNIFICANCE: Failure to replicate research findings often arises from errors in the experimental design and statistical approaches. By providing a full account of the experimental design, procedures, and statistical approaches, researchers can address the reproducibility crisis and improve the sustainability of research outcomes. In this piece, we discuss the key issues leading to irreproducibility and provide general approaches to improving transparency and rigor in reporting, which could assist in making research more reproducible.

Hox cluster duplication in the basal teleost Hiodon alosoides (Osteoglossomorpha).

Large-scale--even genome-wide--duplications have repeatedly been invoked as an explanation for major radiations. Teleosts, the most species-rich vertebrate clade, underwent a "fish-specific genome duplication" (FSGD) that is shared by most ray-finned fish lineages. We investigate here the Hox complement of the goldeye (Hiodon alosoides), a representative of Osteoglossomorpha, the most basal teleostean clade. An extensive PCR survey reveals that goldeye has at least eight Hox clusters, indicating a duplicated genome compared to basal actinopterygians. The possession of duplicated Hox clusters is uncoupled to species richness. The Hox system of the goldeye is substantially different from that of other teleost lineages, having retained several duplicates of Hox genes for which crown teleosts have lost at least one copy. A detailed analysis of the PCR fragments as well as full length sequences of two HoxA13 paralogs, and HoxA10 and HoxC4 genes places the duplication event close in time to the divergence of Osteoglossomorpha and crown teleosts. The data are consistent with-but do not conclusively prove-that Osteoglossomorpha shares the FSGD.

Cross-species amplification of human microsatellite markers using noninvasive samples from white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar).

Analysis of the population genetic structure and reproductive strategies of various primate species has been facilitated by cross-species amplification (i.e., the use of microsatellite markers developed in one species for analysis of another). In this study we screened 47 human-derived markers to assess their utility in the white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar). Only eight produced accurate, reliable results, and exhibited levels of polymorphism that were adequate for individual identification. This low success rate was surprising given that human microsatellite markers typically work well in species (such as macaques) that are evolutionarily more distant from humans than are gibbons. In addition, we experienced limited success in using a set of microsatellite markers that have been reported to be useful in the closely-related H. muelleri, and applying our set of microsatellite markers to samples obtained from one H. pileatus individual. Our results emphasize the importance of extensively screening potential markers in representatives of the population of interest.