Despite these limitations, tools may be useful in drawing readers’ attention to factors that are important for transparency, rigor and reproducibility. Automated tools aren’t perfect – they make mistakes, they can’t tell whether a paper will be reproducible, and they can’t always determine whether a particular criterion is relevant for a given manuscript. Examples include failing to state whether experiments were blinded or randomized, not reporting the sex of participants, or misusing bar graphs to display continuous data. While automated screening is not a replacement for peer review, tools can help to identify common problems. Papers are screened by seven automated screening tools, which are described in the table below. We have combined our tools into a single pipeline, called ScreenIT.
Our members have created tools that check for common problems in scientific manuscripts, including information needed to improve transparency and reproducibility. Our goal is to process every manuscript in the biomedical sciences as it is being submitted for publication, and provide customized feedback to improve that manuscript.
#Screenit software#
The Automated Screening Working Groups is a group of software engineers and biologists passionate about improving scientific manuscripts on a large scale.
0 kommentar(er)
