Abstract
To respond to the NIH's policy for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical research, many journals have implemented guidelines and checklists to guide authors in improving the rigor and reproducibility of their research. Transparency in developing detailed prospective experimental designs and providing raw data are essential premises of rigor and reproducibility. Standard peer reviews and journal-specific technical and statistical reviews are critical factors for enhancing rigor and reproducibility. This brief review also shares some experience from Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, an American Heart Association journal, that has implemented several mechanisms to enhance rigor and reproducibility for preclinical research.
Document Type
Review
Publication Date
3-9-2022
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.856102
Funding Information
The authors' research study was supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers R01HL139748 and R35HL155649, and the American Heart Association SFRN in Vascular Disease (18SFRN33900001).
Repository Citation
Lu, Hong S. and Daugherty, Alan, "Key Factors for Improving Rigor and Reproducibility: Guidelines, Peer Reviews, and Journal Technical Reviews" (2022). Saha Cardiovascular Research Center Faculty Publications. 53.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cvrc_facpub/53
Notes/Citation Information
Published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, v. 9, article 856102.
© 2022 Lu and Daugherty
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.