ArticlePeerJ2021
Understanding experiments and research practices for reproducibility: an exploratory study.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- From glia limitans to glial scars: in vitro co-culture studies of the astrocyte and meningeal interaction.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2025Pooled it
- Computational immunology in venom research: a systematic review of epitope prediction and validation approaches.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Prioritising measures and interventions to strengthen research reproducibility: a Delphi consultation study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Data Availability Statements of Publications in Journals Indexed in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine Category of Journal Citation Reports: A Meta-Research Study.International dental journal · 2026Review
- PRIMUS: a precision medicine platform reusing clinical trials and registry data to support treatment selection in multiple sclerosis.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Knowledge preservation in the era of big science and AI: strategies for sustainable scientific research.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Exosomal bioactive molecules: molecular regulation, functional heterogeneity, and translational implications in disease diagnostics and therapeutics.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Housing and husbandry factors affecting zebrafish novel tank test responses: a global multi-laboratory study.Lab animal · 2025Article
- CombattingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluating the method reproducibility of deep learning models in biodiversity research.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
- The European Reference Genome Atlas: piloting a decentralised approach to equitable biodiversity genomics.npj biodiversity · 2024Article
- Article
- Celiac disease gut microbiome studies in the third millennium: reviewing the findings and gaps of available literature.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Review
- Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Use of mobile technology to enhance the capacity of teachers to teach family life and HIV education in Nigeria: Overview of methods for a randomized controlled trial.Dialogues in health · 2023Article
- Automated control for investigation of the insufflation-ventilation interaction in experimental laparoscopy.PloS one · 2023Article
- Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency in Shared Research Resources: Follow-Up Survey and Recommendations for Improvements.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific experiments and research practices vary across disciplines. The research practices followed by scientists in each domain play an essential role in the understandability and reproducibility of results. The "Reproducibility Crisis", where researchers find difficulty in reproducing published results, is currently faced by several disciplines. To understand the underlying problem in the context of the reproducibility crisis, it is important to first know the different research practices followed in their domain and the factors that hinder reproducibility. We performed an exploratory study by conducting a survey addressed to researchers representing a range of disciplines to understand scientific experiments and research practices for reproducibility. The survey findings identify a reproducibility crisis and a strong need for sharing data, code, methods, steps, and negative and positive results. Insufficient metadata, lack of publicly available data, and incomplete information in study methods are considered to be the main reasons for poor reproducibility. The survey results also address a wide number of research questions on the reproducibility of scientific results. Based on the results of our explorative study and supported by the existing published literature, we offer general recommendations that could help the scientific community to understand, reproduce, and reuse experimental data and results in the research data lifecycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.