Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1002/ece3.1722 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/ece3.1722 C4667817!4667817!26664691     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Ecol+Evol 2015 ; 5 (19): 4451-4 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26664691|t=2015. Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology |pdf=|usr=}}{{26664691}} gab.com Text Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology JO: Ecol Evol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26664691 #FOAvip Despite the scientific method's central tenets of reproducibility (the ability to obtain similar results when repeated) and repeatability (the ability to replicate an experiment based on methods described), published ecological research continues to fail to provide sufficient methodological detail to allow either repeatability of verification. Recent systematic reviews highlight the problem, with one example demonstrating that an average of 13% of studies per year (±8.0 [SD]) failed to report sample sizes. The problem affects the ability to verify the accuracy of any analysis, to repeat methods used, and to assimilate the study findings into powerful and useful meta?analyses. The problem is common in a variety of ecological topics examined to date, and despite previous calls for improved reporting and metadata archiving, which could indirectly alleviate the problem, there is no indication of an improvement in reporting standards over time. Here, we call on authors, editors, and peer reviewers to consider repeatability as a top priority when evaluating research manuscripts, bearing in mind that legacy and integration into the evidence base can drastically improve the impact of individual research reports. Twit Text FOAVip Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology ????Ecol Evol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26664691 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26664691 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26664691}}</ref> Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology #MMPMID26664691 Haddaway NR; Verhoeven JT Ecol Evol 2015[Oct]; 5 (19): 4451-4 PMID26664691show ga Despite the scientific method's central tenets of reproducibility (the ability to obtain similar results when repeated) and repeatability (the ability to replicate an experiment based on methods described), published ecological research continues to fail to provide sufficient methodological detail to allow either repeatability of verification. Recent systematic reviews highlight the problem, with one example demonstrating that an average of 13% of studies per year (±8.0 [SD]) failed to report sample sizes. The problem affects the ability to verify the accuracy of any analysis, to repeat methods used, and to assimilate the study findings into powerful and useful meta?analyses. The problem is common in a variety of ecological topics examined to date, and despite previous calls for improved reporting and metadata archiving, which could indirectly alleviate the problem, there is no indication of an improvement in reporting standards over time. Here, we call on authors, editors, and peer reviewers to consider repeatability as a top priority when evaluating research manuscripts, bearing in mind that legacy and integration into the evidence base can drastically improve the impact of individual research reports. äPoor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and ha(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing