Abstract:'If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.' This metaphor from one of the most influential scientists in history, Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727), well encapsulates the postulate that scientific research advances human knowledge by building upon prior art, cumulatively and progressively. The pharmacologist and Nobelist Sir James Black (1924–2010) reduced Newton's proposition to drug-discovery practice by advocating: 'The most fruitful basis for the discovery of a new drug is to start with an old drug' [<a href="#">1</a>]. Accurate, factual dissemination of reproducible<a href="#en0001">1</a> research results is thus paramount to new-drug invention, which is fundamentally a data-driven, knowledge-based, multiparameter, multiobjective optimization enterprise that strategically exploits the accrued wealth of research findings published in professional journals from the academy. A 2005 analysis by John P.A. Ioannidis [<a href="#">2</a>] and subsequent reports of the low success rate encountered by pharmaceutical companies in their attempts to reproduce seminal findings published by university laboratories [<a href="#">3–5</a>] have intensified vociferous concerns from the public at-large, patient-advocacy groups, healthcare providers, and industry drug hunters about preclinical research integrity and, specifically, the reliability of early stage research results from the academy for inventing better medicines that improve human life- and healthspans [<a href="#">5–7</a>]. Accentuating this problem are reported failures of university laboratories to reproduce therapeutically relevant preclinical results published from others' [e.g. <a href="#">8</a>,<a href="#">9</a>] and their own [<a href="#">10</a>] academic research groups. This infodemic of irreproducible published data has been estimated to encompass 50% of all published preclinical life-science research and waste around 28 USD billion annually in the United States alone [<a href="#">11</a>].

Tackling reproducibility: lessons for the proteomics community

Full Computational Reproducibility in Biological Science: Methods, Software and a Case Study in Protein Biology

Tissue proteomics repositories for data reanalysis

On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature

Systematic heterogenization revisited: Increasing variation in animal experiments to improve reproducibility?

Standardizing protein corona characterization in nanomedicine: a multi-center study to enhance reproducibility and data homogeneity

Genomic reproducibility in the bioinformatics era

Standardizing Protein Corona Characterization in Nanomedicine: A Multicenter Study to Enhance Reproducibility and Data Homogeneity

Antibody characterization is critical to enhance reproducibility in biomedical research

Systematic heterogenization for better reproducibility in animal experimentation

The 2012/2013 ABRF Proteomic Research Group Study: Assessing Longitudinal Intralaboratory Variability in Routine Peptide Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analyses

Guidelines for the next 10 years of proteomics

Four areas of engagement requiring strengthening in modern proteomics today

The current state of single-cell proteomics data analysis

Reproducibility, Replicability, and Repeatability: A survey of reproducible research with a focus on high performance computing

Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research

A framework for quality control in quantitative proteomics

Evaluating Protocols for Reproducible Targeted Metabolomics by NMR

Initial recommendations for performing, benchmarking, and reporting single-cell proteomics experiments

Tackling the reproducibility problem to empower translation of preclinical academic drug discovery: is there an answer?

Improving reproducibility in animal research