Sometimes you're the scooper, and sometimes you get scooped: How to turn both into something good.
Fast-moving, competitive fields often inadvertently duplicate research. In a research environment that values being first over being robust, this results in one manuscript "scooping" ongoing research from other groups. Opportunities to demonstrate the solidity of a result through coinciden...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2018-07-01
|
| Series: | PLoS Biology |
| Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6069283?pdf=render |
| Summary: | Fast-moving, competitive fields often inadvertently duplicate research. In a research environment that values being first over being robust, this results in one manuscript "scooping" ongoing research from other groups. Opportunities to demonstrate the solidity of a result through coincidental reproduction are thus lost. Here, two group leaders, one the scooper and one the scoopee, discuss their experiences under PLOS Biology's new "complementary research" policy. In this case, submission of the second article followed publication of the first by mere days. Scooper and scoopee discuss how complementary research is good for everyone by expanding the scientific reach of studies that are overlapping but not identical, demonstrating the robustness of related results, increasing readership for both authors, and making "replication" studies cost effective by creatively using resources that have already been spent. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1544-9173 1545-7885 |