Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
© John Wiley & Sons Ltd, British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Articles are published under the terms of the Creative Commons License as stated in the final article.
Replication studies: work that refutes key findings (failed replication), and work that validates key findings (the latter should ideally contain data that takes the replication one step further)
Replication studies Investigators often start a new project by validating the core method (in their 'hands') by replicating a key finding from the recent literature. Usually this provides good positive validation data. Sometimes it transpires that other folks' published work cannot be replicated and, when this is the finding, the work is normally left unpublished. It should not be. This problem has recently been highlighted in Nature Biotechnology 31, 943, 2013 (editorial: Receptive to replication - Do replication studies belong in top-tier journals?).
We would like to invite you to submit the outcome of your replication studies to Pharmacology Research & Perspectives. We are interested both in work that refutes key findings (failed replication), and work that validates key findings (the latter should ideally contain data that takes the replication one step further).
We believe that the publication of replication studies is of critical importance. ‘Publication bias’ means that positive outcomes are far easier to publish than ‘negative’ findings, meaning that when one lab obtains a positive outcome and ten other labs obtain negative, it is the one positive finding that gets into print. It is our view that this is one reason for ‘failure of translation’ that blights drug discovery. Our initiative provides an opportunity to redress the balance.