ArticlePloS one2025
Reproducibility and replicability in research: What 452 professors think in Universities across the USA and India.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beware the Little Foxes that Spoil the Vines: Small Inconsistencies in Clinical Data Can Distort Machine Learning Findings.Fortune journal of health sciences · 2025Article
- Achieving reproducibility in the innovation process.Open research Europe · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the past decade, open science and science of science communities have initiated innovative efforts to address concerns about the reproducibility and replicability of published scientific research. In some respects, these efforts have been successful, yet there are still many pockets of researchers with little to no familiarity with these concerns, subsequent responses, or best practices for engaging in reproducible, replicable, and reliable scholarship. In this study, we surveyed 452 professors from universities across the USA and India to understand perspectives on scientific processes and identify key points for intervention. Our findings reveal both national and disciplinary gaps in attention to reproducibility and transparency in science, aggravated by incentive misalignment and resource constraints. We suggest that solutions addressing scientific integrity should be culturally-centered, where definitions of culture should include both regional and domain-specific elements. This study examines research cultures in India and the USA across a diverse range of social science and engineering disciplines. The universities included in the study were carefully selected to represent various regions of each country and reflect institutions across different ranking levels, ensuring a broad and representative sample. While the findings provide valuable insights into the research environments of India and the USA, their applicability is limited to these two countries and respective disciplines. The survey relies on self-reported data, which can be subject to biases, e.g., social desirability or recall bias. Future research will expand the scope to include additional countries, allowing for a more comprehensive comparison of global research cultures. Additionally, we aim to investigate how regional, institutional, and disciplinary factors influence research practices and collaboration across borders, providing a deeper understanding of international academic environments.
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.