Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42160297›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.

Magdalena Kozula, Nicholas J DeVito, Patrick Onghena, Cinzia Colombo, Leonie A Dudda, Paula Muñoz Teno, Veerle Van den Eynden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Magdalena KozulaFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU 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, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-1995
Patrick OnghenaFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3986-8312
Cinzia Colombo"Research with citizens for prevention and care" Unit, Laboratory of Lifestyle Research, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Leonie A DuddaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Paula Muñoz TenoFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Veerle Van den EyndenResearch Coordination Office, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2542-2747

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Debates and policy initiatives addressing research reproducibility have expanded considerably in recent years. Yet, many of these measures remain generic and risk overlooking the lived realities of research practice. This study aims to explore researchers' perspectives on the barriers, facilitators, and motivators that shape reproducible research across diverse fields and career stages, using qualitative methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 60 researchers affiliated with universities and research institutions across the European Union and the United Kingdom. Participants were sampled to ensure diversity in discipline, career stage, gender, and geography. The interviews explored experiences with barriers and facilitators for reproducible research, and the data were analyzed using framework analysis with a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Five interrelated themes described barriers and facilitators influencing reproducibility: navigating the research ecosystem (incentives and policies of institutions, journals, and funders); social and cultural dynamics as drivers and barriers (disciplinary norms, generational differences, competition, and collaboration); resourcing reproducibility (skills, infrastructure, guidelines and standards, time, funding, and awareness); inside the research process (field-specific constraints, methodological transparency, research material sharing, and external restrictions); and personal commitment to shared responsibility (reflective motivations, pragmatic drivers, and perceptions of accountability). Researchers described reproducibility as less of an individual choice but as a socially and institutionally mediated activity, dependent on enabling conditions such as supportive policies, adequate infrastructure, and equitable resource distribution. Reproducibility reform cannot rely solely on individual researcher commitment or one-size-fits-all policies. Effective interventions must account for disciplinary and methodological diversity, provide targeted resources and training, and realign incentive structures to reward transparency and rigour. These findings highlight reproducibility as a collective responsibility across the research ecosystem, requiring coordinated action by researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. Promoting reproducible practices in this systemic, context-sensitive manner is essential for fostering a more credible, equitable, and sustainable scientific enterprise.

Indexed as

Research PersonnelFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMotivationReproducibility of ResultsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID42160297
PMCPMC13189303

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.