IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v2y2014i3p71-82d39822.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Failure to Replicate: A Sign of Scientific Misconduct?

Author

Listed:
  • Helene Z. Hill

    (Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA)

  • Joel H. Pitt

    (Renaissance Associates, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA)

Abstract

Repeated failures to replicate reported experimental results could indicate scientific misconduct or simply result from unintended error. Experiments performed by one individual involving tritiated thymidine, published in two papers in Radiation Research , showed exponential killing of V79 Chinese hamster cells. Two other members of the same laboratory were unable to replicate the published results in 15 subsequent attempts to do so, finding, instead, at least 100-fold less killing and biphasic survival curves. These replication failures (which could have been anticipated based on earlier radiobiological literature) raise questions regarding the reliability of the two reports. Two unusual numerical patterns appear in the questioned individual’s data, but do not appear in control data sets from the two other laboratory members, even though the two key protocols followed by all three were identical or nearly so. This report emphasizes the importance of: (1) access to raw data that form the background of reports and grant applications; (2) knowledge of the literature in the field; and (3) the application of statistical methods to detect anomalous numerical behaviors in raw data. Furthermore, journals and granting agencies should require that authors report failures to reproduce their published results.

Suggested Citation

  • Helene Z. Hill & Joel H. Pitt, 2014. "Failure to Replicate: A Sign of Scientific Misconduct?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:2:y:2014:i:3:p:71-82:d:39822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/2/3/71/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/2/3/71/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:2:y:2014:i:3:p:71-82:d:39822. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.