Should all research be monitored?

Should all research be monitored?

I recently published my first study that was monitored by an independent monitoring agency.

In short, this means that an independent agency checks how you are executing the study, checks how the study is performed, checks your study files and checks your data entry. And this happens at multiple stages of the study.

The purpose of this is to make sure the study is performed as good as possible according to all rules and best practices.

The upside is that you can be much more confident that independently monitored studies are performed properly.

The downside is that it costs quite a bit of time and money (there is A LOT of paperwork involved).

Personally, I think all studies should be monitored. Yes, it costs time and money, two things you’re always tight on as researchers. It will slow down research even more.

But the scientific process is only as good as it’s being executed. There’s a pressure on scientists to publish more and more. Maybe we need to move back to quality over quantity.

And it might also help with public trust. Unfortunately, there are cases of fraud in science. Independent monitoring would make that a whole lot more difficult.

What do you think? Will independent monitoring become the norm and/or required in the future?

I certainly hope so.

Study reference:
Casein Protein Processing Strongly Modulates Post-Prandial Plasma Amino Acid Responses In Vivo in Humans