Dr. Melissa Haendel, an ontologist and assistant professor in the Library and Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology at Oregon Health and Science University, and Dr. Nicole Vasilevsky, project manager and biocurator in Oregon Health and Science University's Ontology Development Group, presented new guidelines for reporting scientific and medical research that includes reagents or model organisms, needed to address a specific hypothesis in the Sept. 5, 2013, issue of the journal PeerJ.
The researchers examined 240 articles from 80 prominent research journals that involved scientific or medical research and found that 50 percent of the reports did not include sufficient information to replicate the experiments described in the reports based on the reports description of the reagents used or the definition of the model organism used and the availability of that model organism.
A basic foundation of scientific research as it is presently practiced is reproducibility by peer review. The new research is considered to be nearer to proof than speculation if a scientist or research facility completely separate from the original research publisher can reproduce the results from the original research then.
The practical aspect of peer review and reproducibility is to limit the expense of additional testing that may be mandated by oversight groups like the FDA. The peer review process is not designed to hasten a faulty drug to market but to identify errors and omissions in research particularly when that research is going to impact human life.
The proposed guidelines can be found here.