TY - JOUR
T1 - Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research
T2 - a scoping review
AU - Dudda, Leonie
AU - Kormann, Eva
AU - Kozula, Magdalena
AU - DeVito, Nicholas J
AU - Klebel, Thomas
AU - Dewi, Ayu P M
AU - Spijker, René
AU - Stegeman, Inge
AU - Van den Eynden, Veerle
AU - Ross-Hellauer, Tony
AU - Leeflang, Mariska M G
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s).
PY - 2025/4
Y1 - 2025/4
N2 - Various open science practices have been proposed to improve the reproducibility and replicability of scientific research, but not for all practices, there may be evidence they are indeed effective. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to improve reproducibility. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus and Eric, on 18 August 2023. Any study empirically evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the reproducibility or replicability of scientific methods and findings was included. We summarized the retrieved evidence narratively and in evidence gap maps. Of the 105 distinct studies we included, 15 directly measured the effect of an intervention on reproducibility or replicability, while the remainder addressed a proxy outcome that might be expected to increase reproducibility or replicability, such as data sharing, methods transparency or pre-registration. Thirty studies were non-comparative and 27 were comparative but cross-sectional observational designs, precluding any causal inference. Despite studies investigating a range of interventions and addressing various outcomes, our findings indicate that in general the evidence base for which various interventions to improve reproducibility of research remains remarkably limited in many respects.
AB - Various open science practices have been proposed to improve the reproducibility and replicability of scientific research, but not for all practices, there may be evidence they are indeed effective. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to improve reproducibility. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus and Eric, on 18 August 2023. Any study empirically evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the reproducibility or replicability of scientific methods and findings was included. We summarized the retrieved evidence narratively and in evidence gap maps. Of the 105 distinct studies we included, 15 directly measured the effect of an intervention on reproducibility or replicability, while the remainder addressed a proxy outcome that might be expected to increase reproducibility or replicability, such as data sharing, methods transparency or pre-registration. Thirty studies were non-comparative and 27 were comparative but cross-sectional observational designs, precluding any causal inference. Despite studies investigating a range of interventions and addressing various outcomes, our findings indicate that in general the evidence base for which various interventions to improve reproducibility of research remains remarkably limited in many respects.
U2 - 10.1098/rsos.242057
DO - 10.1098/rsos.242057
M3 - Article
C2 - 40206851
SN - 2054-5703
VL - 12
JO - Royal Society open science
JF - Royal Society open science
IS - 4
M1 - 242057
ER -