{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03411131059245961, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04129263913824058, 'mean_word_length': 5.131868131868132, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reproducibility — A Journal Editor's Perspective

Recent articles published in the popular press have highlighted how science can go wrong; alarmingly, when some labs have attempted to reproduce results of already published data from preclinical studies, they have reported being successful only 12%–25% of the time. As there is a lack of consensus about this problem, this talk focuses on the magnitude and applicability of the problem of reproducibility and what journals can do to address it. Anat Rec, 301:1488–1490, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.