ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Prioritising measures and interventions to strengthen research reproducibility: a Delphi consultation study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch reproducibility - the ability of others to independently verify scientific findings by following the same methods and data - is a fundamental aspect of research integrity. When this fails, trust in evidence is undermined and research resources are wasted. Reproducibility measures describe the standards that define reproducible research, and reproducibility interventions are the actions used to improve those standards. There is little agreement on which practices and initiatives should be prioritised for implementation in practice. This study aimed to establish expert consensus on the key measures and interventions that should be prioritised to strengthen research reproducibility.
methodsWe conducted a Delphi consensus study as part of the EU Horizon Europe iRISE project. Experts from five stakeholder groups (researchers, editors, publishers, funders, and policymakers) evaluated reproducibility measures and interventions identified through prior literature mapping across two online survey rounds, followed by a final virtual consensus panel. Items were rated on a 10-point Likert scale, with consensus defined a priori as agreement by at least 70% of panellists assigning high-priority scores, corresponding to scores of eight to ten on the Likert scale.
resultsSeventy-three panellists from 34 countries participated in the first round, with high retention rates in the subsequent round. Consensus was achieved on eight reproducibility measures and six reproducibility interventions in the first round. Prioritised measures included methodological quality, reporting quality, code and data availability and reuse, computational reproducibility, transparency of research plan, reproducible workflow practices, trial registration, and materials availability and reuse. Prioritised interventions included data management training, data quality checks/feedback, statistical training, data sharing policy/guidelines, protocol/trial registration, and reproducible code/analysis training.
conclusionsThe prioritised measures and interventions provide a structured foundation for improving research reproducibility across disciplines. The findings can inform the development of institutional training curricula in data management and statistical methods, policies supporting data sharing and trial registration, and future empirical evaluation of these practices across research contexts.
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.