OBJECTIVES: We examined the extent to which consensus exists on the criteria that should be used for assessing the credibility of a scientific work, regardless of its funding source, and explored how these criteria might be implemented. DATA SOURCES: Three publications, all presented at a session of the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, have proposed a range of criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. At least two other similar sets of criteria have recently been proposed elsewhere. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: In this article we review these criteria, highlight the commonalities among them, and integrate them into a list of 10 criteria. We also discuss issues inherent in any attempt to implement the criteria systematically. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations by many scientists and policy experts converge on a finite list of criteria for assessing the credibility of a scientific study without regard to funding source. These criteria should be formalized through a consensus process or a governmental initiative that includes discussion and pilot application of a system for reproducibly implementing them. Formal establishment of such a system should enable the debate regarding chemical studies to move beyond funding issues and focus on scientific merit.
展开▼
