ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2026
Implementing Reproducible Fisheries Research: A Decade of Experience With the Kahawai Reporting System.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific publishing is widely perceived to be in a state of crisis. A contributing factor is reproducibility: the extent to which the results can be replicated is key to assessing the reliability of a study. Reproducibility rates have often been found to be low, a situation complicated by the fact that many studies provide insufficient details of their methods. For the last decade, we have been using a framework that allows us to fully reproduce the results of analyses of fisheries data. Key features are that the analyses are fully defined in code and run within a consistent computing environment. The approach has proven to be transferable, with the framework being adopted in a range of other disciplines. Incentivising the broader adoption of fully reproducible analyses would assist in re-establishing trust in scientific publications, addressing the "reproducibility crisis" while also providing a basis for strengthened peer review processes and increasing the likelihood that questionable research practices are identified. Implementing fully reproducible analyses has some overhead, especially where the software tools that support the approach are unfamiliar. We have found that the benefits of openness, transparency, and efficiency, together with increased collaboration, make this overhead worthwhile.
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.