title: Scientific research in the age of omics: the good, the bad, and the sloppy.
abstract: It has been claimed that most research findings are false, and it is known that large-scale studies involving omics data are especially prone to errors in design, execution, and analysis. The situation is alarming because taxpayer dollars fund a substantial amount of biomedical research, and because the publication of a research article that is later determined to be flawed can erode the credibility of an entire field, resulting in a severe and negative impact for years to come. Here, we urge the development of an online, open-access, postpublication, peer review system that will increase the accountability of scientists for the quality of their research and the ability of readers to distinguish good from sloppy science.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. dwitten@u.washington.edu
authors.forename: Daniela M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Witten
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Tibshirani
mesh_terms: D022126:Access to Information; D035843:Biomedical Research; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D017146:Models, Organizational; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D058996:Quality Improvement; D012941:Social Responsibility