Knowledge Exchange (KE) have published their latest report on research reproducibility in November 2021 (link to the article). In the report, you can read about current practices and barriers in this area and the role of technical and social infrastructure in supporting new developments. The report arose from 12 months of research, including an in-depth literature review and consultation with over 50 stakeholders from 12 different countries.
The art of publishing reproducible research outputs
From grassroots to global: A blueprint for building a reproducibility network
PLOS Biology, Published: November 10, 2021
Researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers are considering how to improve research culture and quality, but no single part of the research ecosystem can effect change on its own. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) was established to facilitate the necessary coordination. Its experience can inform the establishment of like-minded networks around the world to drive positive change.
Left panel: As of October 25, 2021, the UKRN comprised 57 local networks (https://www.ukrn.org/local-network-leads), shown in pink on the UK figure, and 21 institutional members (https://www.ukrn.org/institutional-leads), shown in purple. We also have 37 members of our external stakeholder group, comprising funders, publishers, learned societies, and other sectoral organisations (https://www.ukrn.org/stakeholders). As UKRN grows, these numbers change! Right panel: UKRN is only one of a growing number of national reproducibility networks worldwide (https://www.ukrn.org/international-networks), in Europe and beyond.
European Commission: Reproducibility of scientific results in the EU
2020, Scoping report (link to the report)
This report scopes the issue of the reproducibility of scientific results, based on a field review and on an expert seminar on the opportunity of policy action in Europe. As such, it aims to increase the European Commission’s understanding of the lack of reproducibility in Europe, and help design a suitable response in the context of EU Research & Innovation. The report identifies the key emerging issues in reproducibility; it is informed by clearly marked expert opinion (in italics), as it emerged from the scoping seminar. Concrete recommendations of possible action by the European Commission are featured in separate ‘Action Boxes’. Overall the report introduces the concept of reproducibility as a continuum of practices. It is posited that the reproducibility of results has value both as a mechanism to ensure good science based on truthful claims, and as a driver of further discovery and innovation. The sections includes a working definition that is conducive for policy making and thus delimits the scope of the subject. Then the report reviews recent claims regarding the increasing lack of reproducibility in modern science, dubbed by some a ‘crisis of reproducibility’. It explores the main traits and underlying causes of the lack of reproducibility, including bias, poor experimental design and statistics, issues with scientific reporting, research culture, career-related factors and economics. Finally, the report reviews recent activities by scientists, research funders and publishers that aim to mitigate the lack of reproducibility; and it catalogues a range of possible remedies to the lack of reproducibility as they are found in the literature. The report provides concrete advice for policy action that may increase reproducibility in three key areas of the EU Research & Innovation, specifically guidelines; the research grant system; and training and careers