You will be presented with the abstract, introduction, and discussion section from a biomedical research article. Your task is to create a summary that a layperson can understand, capturing the essence of the research article. Keep essential scientific terms, but ensure that the language remains clear and the concepts are explained in an uncomplicated manner.

Title: Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature}
Article:
Abstract:
There is a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and the documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest. In this survey, we assessed the current status of reproducibility and transparency addressing these indicators in a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000–2014. Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available. Replication studies were rare( n = 4), and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest. The percentage of articles with no statement of conflict decreased substantially between 2000 and 2014( 94. 4% in 2000 to 34. 6% in 2014); the percentage of articles reporting statements of conflicts( 0% in 2000, 15. 4% in 2014) or no conflicts( 5. 6% in 2000, 50. 0% in 2014) increased. Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature.
Introduction:
The inability to replicate published research has been an ongoing concern in the scientific community[1]. There is clear evidence from basic molecular and animal modeling research that a large portion of published articles lack reproducibility[2], which could potentially be related to the increase in lack of efficacy in clinical trials[3, 4]. It has been suggested that the inability to replicate findings is due to a lack of research transparency[5]. Recently, there has been a growing movement to encourage making protocols, analytical codes, and data openly available[6–8]. In this study, we aimed to assess the current status of reproducibility and transparency in a random sample of published biomedical journal articles and to derive empirical data on indicators that have been proposed as being important to monitor in this regard[9], i. e., the proportion of studies sharing protocols and raw data, undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks, and reporting conflicts of interest and sources of public and/or private funding.
Discussion:
Our evaluation is limited to published biomedical research information. In theory, sometimes one may be able to obtain additional raw data and protocols, and clarifications on conflicts or funding by communicating with the authors or sponsors. However, the yield would be uncertain, and personal communications should not replace the lack of transparency in the published scientific record. Furthermore, the fact that we only used the published records means that we could not correct any inaccuracies in the claims of the original authors. This may be particularly prominent in the case of claims for novelty, in which some authors may have tried to sell their paper as being more novel than it really is, so as to make it more attractive for publication. Although the two investigators( SAI and JDW) used their best judgment and discussed all eligible papers before agreeing upon a final classification, certain decisions may have been subjective. In particular, when determining study novelty and replication for articles from diverse biomedical fields, difficulty arose assessing whether study results were truly groundbreaking or being fully replicated. In order to account for these limitations, all ambiguous articles were discussed with a third reviewer( JPAI). We hope that our survey will further sensitize scientists, funders, journals, and other stakeholders in science to the need to improve these indicators. There are several efforts to improve reproducibility[40–42]. By continuing to monitor these indicators in the future, it is possible to track any evidence of improvement in the design, conduct, analysis, funding, and independence of biomedical research over time.
There is increasing interest in the scientific community about whether published research is transparent and reproducible . Lack of replication and non-transparency decreases the value of research . Several biomedical journals have started to encourage or require authors to submit detailed protocols , full datasets , and disclose information on funding and potential conflicts of interest . In this study , we investigate the reproducibility and transparency practices across the full spectrum of published biomedical literature from 2000–2014 . We identify an ongoing lack of access to full datasets and detailed protocols for both clinical and non-clinical biomedical investigation . We also map the availability of information on funding and conflicts of interest in this literature . The results from this study provide baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature . We believe that this information may be essential to sensitize stakeholders in science about the need for improving reproducibility and transparency practices .