Six red flags for suspect work (original) (raw)

Reproducibility

Nature volume 497, pages 433–434 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

C. Glenn Begley explains how to recognize the preclinical papers in which the data won't stand up.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

References

  1. Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  2. Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  3. Rossner, M. 'How to Guard Against Image Fraud' The Scientist (1 March 2006); available at http://go.nature.com/bjjbe4
    Google Scholar
  4. Vaux, D. L. Nature 492, 180–181 (2012).
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. C. Glenn Begley is senior vice-president at TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals, Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA.,
    C. Glenn Begley

Corresponding author

Correspondence toC. Glenn Begley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

C.G.B. is on the board of directors of Oxford Biotherapeutics and on the scientific advisory board of several companies. He holds stock in Amgen.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Begley, C. Six red flags for suspect work.Nature 497, 433–434 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/497433a

Download citation

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. Nitin Gandhi 23 May 2013, 22:41
    Now that the six red flags are out &#8211 researchers will "take care" of these while "writing" a paper!