A large number of biomedical scientists have tried and failed to replicate their own studies, with many not publishing their findings, a survey suggests.

The study’s authors warn that researchers’ failure to rigorously approach their own work creates “major problems in bias” and hinders innovation in science.

Their survey of about 1,600 authors of biomedical science papers found that 72% agreed there it was a crisis of reproducibility in their field.

Participants suggested a variety of factors, but the main cause that most participants indicated always contributed to irreproducible research was pressure to publish.

The study found that only half (54 percent) of the participants had tried to reproduce their own work before. Of those, 43 percent failed.

Of those who had tried reproduce one of his own studiesjust over a third (36 percent) said they had published the results, according to findings published in PLOS Biology on November 5.

Lead author Kelly Cobey, associate professor in the School of Epidemiology and Public Health at University of Ottawarespondents said they felt their institution did not value replication research to the same extent as new research.

“Until we give researchers the time, funding and space to approach their research rigorously, which includes recognizing replication studies and null results as valuable components of the scientific system, we are likely to see only selected reports of the scientific system published.” she said Times Higher Education.

“This creates major problems in bias and hinders our ability to innovate and discover new things.”

Cobey said publications remained an “important, albeit problematic, currency of a researcher’s success” because there is a perception that null findings are not as interesting as positive ones.

“Researchers may feel there is limited value in writing up their results … if they are not likely to be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, especially a prestigious one.”

Many researchers reported that they never tried to replicate someone else’s study. Of the participants who tried to replicate another team’s findings, more than 80% failed to achieve the same results.

Cobey called for a much more rigorous system of monitoring research reproducibility and researchers’ perceptions of the academic ecosystem, conducted at the national level.

“I think it’s clear that problems with academic incentives continue to permeate the scientific system, and that we need significant advocacy and reform if we are going to align our research conduct with best practices for transparency and reproducibility,” she said.