Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Keywords

editorial publication bias peer review research evidence-based medicine materials science teaching

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 533(7604):452–454.

Bayne

. 2012. Correlation of clinical performance with “in vitro tests” of restorative dental materials that use polymer-based matrices. Dent Mater. 28(1):52–71.

Cesar

Hickel

Kelly

Lohbauer

Watts

. 2017. Adm research guidance papers. Dent Mater. 33(9):967.

De Munck

Mine

Poitevin

Van Ende

Cardoso

Van Landuyt

Peumans

Van Meerbeek

2012. Meta-analytical review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. J Dent Res. 91(4):351–357.

Eriksson

Helgesson

2017. The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Med Health Care Philos. 20(2):163–170.

Ferracane

Mitchem

. 1994. Properties of posterior composite: results of round robin testing for a specification. Dent Mater. 10(2):92–99.

Glick

. 2012. Causist or casuist? The difference is you. J Am Dent Assoc. 143(12):1281–1282.

Heintze

. 2007. Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength. II. The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome. J Adhes Dent. 9 Suppl 1:77–106.

Heintze

Zimmerli

2011. Relevance of in-vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials: a review in 3 parts. Part 2: non-standardized tests of composite materials. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 121(10):916–930.

10.

Kolata

. 2017 Oct 30. Many academics are eager to publish in worthless journals. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html.

11.

Lauer

. 2017. Continuing steps to ensuring credibility of NIH research: selecting journals with credible practices. National Institues of Health [accessed November 24, 2017]. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/11/08/continuing-steps-to-ensuring-credibility-of-nih-research-selecting-journals-with-credible-practices.

12.

Layton

. 2017. A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews actually systematic? Int J Prosthodont. 30(1):13–21.

13.

Macleod

Michie

Roberts

Dirnagl

Chalmers

Ioannidis

Al-Shahi Salman

Chan

Glasziou

2014. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 383(9912):101–104.

14.

Morimoto

Rebello

Sampaio

Braga

Sesma

Ozcan

2016. Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 95(9):985–994.

15.

Opdam

NJM

Collares

Hickel

Bayne

Loomans

Cenci

Lynch

Correa

Demarco

Schwendicke

et al . 2018. Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: new directions and new demands. Dent Mater. 34(1):1–12.

16.

Peng

. 2015. The reproducibility crisis in science: a statistical counterattack. Significance. 12(3):30–32.

17.

Rekow

Bayne

Carvalho

Steele

. 2013. What constitutes an ideal dental restorative material? Adv Dent Res. 25(1):18–23.

18.

Roulet

. 2017. A consensus-based approach to evidence-based clinical practice. Dent Mater. 33(10):1067–1068.

19.

Schwendicke

Gostemeyer

Blunck

Paris

Hsu

. 2016. Directly placed restorative materials: review and network meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 95(6):613–622.

20.

Stevens

. 2017. Replicability and reproducibility in comparative psychology. Front Psychol. 8:862.

Enhancing the Value of Dental Biomaterials Research: “Reducing the Noise”

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References