Onward and upward with transparent research reporting.

Editorial for AJP-Cell Physiology 1 2 Onward and Upward with Transparent Research Reporting 3 4 Josephine C. Adams 5 Editor-in-Chief. 6 7 School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TD, UK. 8 [email protected] 9 10 In 2015, APS Council and the APS Publications Committee, the latter led by 11 Dr. Curt D. Sigmund, began an initiative on the transparency of research 12 reporting in the APS Journals. At this time, concerns over biosciences 13 research reproducibility, especially in areas such as pre-clinical cancer 14 biology research, had become prominent [2, 7, 8]. As of 2017, multiple 15 funding bodies, including the USA National Institutes of Health, have 16 reconfigured their instructions for preparation of grant applications to give 17 more emphasis to methodology, experimental design and the validation of key 18 reagents [e.g., NIH: grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.html; UK Medical 19 Research Council: www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/methodology-and20 experimental-design-in-applications-guidance-for-reviewers-and-applicants/ ]. 21 22 The APS initiative included discussions between the Publications Committee, 23 Editors of APS Journals and Editorial Advisory Board members on how 24 guidance to authors for manuscript preparation could be aligned with the over25 arching goal of enhancing the likelihood of research reproducibility. The 26 discussions highlighted the central issue that any attempt at research 27 reproduction (or extension) depends on access to sufficient information on the 28 reagents, experimental procedures and statistical analyses utilised in the 29 initial research study. Thus one major outcome was that in August 2016 the 30 APS Journals updated their Instructions to Authors for manuscript and figure 31 preparation. At the start of 2017, new questions for reviewers were introduced 32 as part of the peer-review process for original research manuscripts. In this 33 Editorial, I will discuss areas of Methods reporting that are of particular 34 relevance to AJP-Cell Physiology and offer some points of guidance to 35 potential authors. Of course, there are many aspects of reagent choice and 36 experimental design that may affect the likelihood of research reproducibility. 37 Several “hot-button” topics, including the selectivity of pharmacological 38 inhibitors, or the specificity and reliability of commercial antibodies, have been 39 addressed recently in AJP-Cell Physiology and will not be not covered further 40 here [4, 10]. 41 42 Many readers of this editorial will be familiar with training graduate students to 43 question their reagents, to be meticulous and timely with record-keeping, and 44 to present comprehensive explanations on methods, reagents and statistical 45 analyses when writing a research thesis. Nevertheless, this level of detail is 46 far removed from the abbreviated style of methods writing that has come to 47 predominate in modern bioscience research papers. From the beginning of 48 the APS discussions, it was clear that certain practices in research reporting 49 were and are a source of frustration for many Editors. Based on outcomes 50 Articles in PresS. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol (March 8, 2017). doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00045.2017