When the research is not reproducible: the importance of author-initiated and institution-driven responses and investigations

Important and potentially useful findings in the sciences are under more intense public scrutiny now more than ever. Other researchers in the field dive into replicating and expanding the findings while the media swamps the community and the public with peripheral reporting and analyses. How should authors and the hosting/funding institutions respond when other workers in the field could not reproduce or replicate their published results? To illustrate the importance of author-initiated and institution-driven investigations in response to outcries of research irreproducibility, I draw on comparisons between three recent and well-publicized cases in the life sciences: betatrophin, Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) cells, and Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute (NgAgo). Swift, transparent responses and investigations facilitate activation of the self-correcting mechanism of science and are likely also critical in preserving the community’s resources, public trust, and the reputation of the institutions and individuals concerned. Operational guidelines for “author and institutional responses” towards external reports of irreproducibility should therefore be in place for all research intensive institutions.