Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206851›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.

Leonie Dudda, Eva Kormann, Magdalena Kozula, Nicholas J DeVito, Thomas Klebel, Ayu P M Dewi, René Spijker, Inge Stegeman, Veerle Van den Eynden, Tony Ross-Hellauer and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Leonie DuddaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0759-7354
Eva KormannOpen and Reproducible Research Group, Know Center GmbH, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5680-3659
Magdalena KozulaKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0333-4279
Nicholas J DeVitoNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-1995
Thomas KlebelOpen and Reproducible Research Group, Know Center GmbH, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7331-4751
Ayu P M DewiEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7645-6424
René SpijkerCochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4445-1201
Inge StegemanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5154-7178
Veerle Van den EyndenKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2542-2747
Tony Ross-HellauerGraz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-7027
Mariska M G LeeflangEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-0471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

open sciencereproducibilityscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40206851
PMCPMC11979971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.