MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406849664 · doi:10.1111/bph.17441

Guidance on the planning and reporting of experimental design and analysis

2025· editorial· en· W4406849664 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2025
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineVeterinary
ThématiqueAnimal testing and alternatives
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mots-clésComputer scienceBlindingFalse positive paradoxSet (abstract data type)Plan (archaeology)Subject (documents)Section (typography)Information retrievalData scienceOperations researchMEDLINEWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The aim of this guidance document is to help authors plan experiments, conduct analyses and present the results of work intended for publication in the British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP). The guidance is structured to minimize the risk of generating and publishing false findings. Below, we explain the key elements of experimental planning (blinding, randomization and adequate group sizes) and how to avoid generating incorrect findings (false positives in particular). We explain how to capture the relevant design and analysis information in your manuscript so it can be examined quickly, efficiently and fairly in peer review. In accordance with previous modifications to our requirements at BJP, we have eliminated a great deal of the items set forth in the most recent guidance document (Curtis et al., 2022) that were found to be too granular or subject-specific. We also hope to dispel some myths about what BJP will consider, in a clear and helpful manner, and encourage more authors to submit their work confidently to the journal according to the vision of the editorial board (Papapetropoulos et al., 2023). The three key elements of experimental planning should be reported in the ‘Experimental design and analysis section’ of ‘Methods’. Compliance with the guidance cannot normally be adjusted after the experiments of a study are complete. However, data generated by experiments not conforming to these three elements may be reported in the paper if such data are a preliminary or minor part of your narrative. There is an easy way to decide if such data are appropriate for BJP: If the data in question can safely be excluded from your abstract and your conclusions without undermining the narrative, then you may include them in your paper. We expect referees to consider such data and not simply recommend rejection of the manuscript. In ‘Methods’, please explain which P value you have stipulated to denote statistical significance when comparing between groups, time points and so forth. This is almost always P < 0.05. When ANOVA or related multi-group statistics are employed, remember the F statistic and the variance homogeneity are the gatekeepers that determine whether you can justifiably compare individual groups with one another. Please state in ‘Methods’ that ‘post hoc tests (such as Tukey's test) were run only if F were significant (P<0.05) and there was no variance inhomogeneity’. The same requirement applies to more complex multi-group analysis: repeated measures analysis and analysis of covariance, for example. It is particularly important to follow this rubric and make this clear in ‘Methods’ as some software packages will allow a post hoc test to be run even when these conditions are not met, generating false positive results. If you planned to perform parametric analysis (t test or multiple comparison tests) but cannot because conditions are not met, you may find that a log transform generates Gaussian data that remove the variance inhomogeneity. The data may then be amenable to parametric testing. If this is not the case, then please use non-parametric statistics. Individual values or samples should not be excluded from data analysis unless the exclusion criteria have been defined in ‘Methods’ and the number of samples or values excluded per group is reported. The best place for reporting such an occurrence is the figure/table legend. If an experiment is worth doing, it is worth planning. If it is not worth planning, it may be not worth doing. Any issues concerning data analysis can be resolved once a study has been completed, but a badly designed study may be unpublishable. Here, we explain how to plan your experiments, so they incorporate randomization, blinding and independent group sizes of at least n = 5 into the design, and how to get your paper published if you cannot do this. The key points are summarized in Figure 1. It means that experiments that are not randomized or blinded or adequately powered may be included in the paper, but the author will need to explain the value of the data which must be presented without the statistical analysis that pharmacologists normally use as a pattern recognition aid. You are invited to contact the BJP consulting editor for design and analysis if you would like advice on your experimental planning — before you start your experiments. All authors contributed to the design and writing of the manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. N/A-Editorial.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,509
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,536

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,158
Tête enseignante GPT0,467
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle