Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Incentives and pressures in the scientific ecosystem. Although scientists are ultimately responsible for the quality of the research they perform and how it is reported, they are also under numerous pressures from various parts of the scientific ecosystem that can negatively impact rigor and transparency. There are pressures to publish research articles (especially in high-impact journals), obtain funding (which may, in part, depend on publication history), seek professional development opportunities to advance one's career and progress through a career ladder that often uses publication and funding metrics as benchmarks of research performance. This ecosystem tends to incentivize exciting studies that generate hypotheses or incompletely explore hypotheses over carefully designed studies with high research quality and transparency that more deeply explore a scientific question.
- Figure 2.
Key milestones in National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) efforts to catalyze culture change. Timeline with examples of NINDS and trans-NIH efforts since 2011 to improve the awareness and practice of rigorous and transparent research practices. Corresponding to elements of the scientific ecosystem shown in Figure 1, magenta boxes relate to funding efforts, dark green boxes to reporting in publications, black boxes to training and professional development, orange boxes to efforts of individual rigor champions, and the blue box to institutional culture change. ACD, Advisory Committee to the NIH Director. NIGMS, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. T32, Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Training Program. ORQ, Office of Research Quality.
In this issue
