The lack of research replicability is becoming more of a concern in many fields. The medical research community and specifically the National Institutes of Health are concerned about how this issue will affect the well-being of the field (Collins & Tabak, 2014). However, this situation represents an opportunity to showcase how human factors can act as a solution through a combination of usability and human systems integration. The current work details how the development of a software platform designed to address replicability and reproducibility concerns in drug dependency research was informed by human factors principles from early development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsendorpfJ. B.ConnerM.De FruytF.De HouwerJ.DenissenJ. J.FiedlerK.. . . PeruginiM. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108-119.
BegleyC. G.EllisL. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531-533.
4.
BeggC. B.BerlinJ. A. (1988). Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 419-463.
5.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.TannenbaumS. I.SalasE.ConverseS. A. (1991). Toward an integration of training theory and technique. Human Factors, 33(3), 281-292.
6.
CleggB. A.HeggestadE. D.BlalockL. D. (2010, September). The influences of automation and trainee aptitude on training effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 54, No. 27, pp. 2329-2332). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
7.
CollinsF. S.TabakL. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612.
8.
CruessR. L.CruessS. R. (2008). Expectations and obligations: professionalism and medicine’s social contract with society. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 51(4), 579-598.
9.
DickersinK. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Jama, 263(10), 1385-1389
10.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463.
11.
DwanK.GambleC.WilliamsonP. R.KirkhamJ. J. (2013). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PloS one, 8(7), e66844.
12.
EasterbrookP. J.GopalanR.BerlinJ. A.MatthewsD. R. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research. The Lancet, 337(8746), 867-872.
13.
ElamM.BertilssonM. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233-251.
14.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502-1505.
15.
FowlkesJ. E.MerketD. C.OserR. L. (2000, July). Transitioning SA theory and research into practical training guidance: A case study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 44, No. 11, pp. 419-422). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
16.
GibbonsM. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81-C84.
17.
GoreS. M.JonesI. G.RytterE. C. (1977). Misuse of statistical methods: critical assessment of articles in BMJ from January to March 1976. Br Med J, 1(6053), 85-87.
18.
HartshorneJ. K.SchachnerA. (2012). Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Beyond open access: visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review, 70.
19.
IoannidisJ. P. A.GreenlandS.HlatkyM. A.KhouryM. J.MacleodM. R.MoherD.. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste and research design, conduct and analysis. Lancet383, 166–175.;
20.
IoannidisJ. P. (2005a). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Jama, 294(2), 218-228.
21.
IoannidisJ. P. (2005b). Why most published research findings are false. PLos med, 2(8), e124.
22.
KilkennyC.BrowneW. J.CuthillI. C.EmersonM.AltmanD. G. (2010). Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal re
23.
KleinerB. M.BooherH. R. (2003). Human systems integration education and training. Handbook of human systems integration, 121-163.
24.
LawtonJ. S. (2016). Reproducibility and replicability of science and thoracic surgery. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 152(6), 1489-1491.
25.
LouridasP.GousiosG. (2012). A note on rigour and replicability. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 37(5),1-4.
26.
MacaskillP.WalterS. D.IrwigL. (2001). A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta analysis. Statistics in medicine, 20(4), 641-654.
27.
MumawR. J.RothE. M. (1995, October). Training complex tasks in a functional context. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 39, No. 20, pp. 1253-1253). SAGE Publications.
28.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
29.
PashlerH.HarrisC. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531-536.
30.
PattersonR. E.PierceB. J.BoydstunA. S.RamseyL. M.ShannanJ.TrippL.BellH. (2013). Training intuitive decision Making in a simulated real-world environment. Human factors, 55(2), 333-345.
31.
PrasadV.VandrossA.ToomeyC.CheungM.RhoJ.QuinnS.HoN. (2013, August). A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 88, No. 8, pp. 790-798). Elsevier.
32.
PrinzF.SchlangeT.AsadullahK. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 10(9), 712-712.
33.
SarewitzD. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental science & policy, 7(5), 385-403.
34.
SchmidtS. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90.
35.
StrausS. E.McAlisterF. A. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 163(7), 837-841.
36.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological bulletin, 76(2), 105.
37.
WagerE.WilliamsP. (2013). “Hardly worth the effort”? Medical journals’ policies and their editors’ and publishers’ views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study. BMJ, 347, f5248.
