ArticleF1000Research2025
Exploratory Insights into Barriers and Open Practices for Computational Reproducibility in Scientific Research.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reproducible analytical pipelines for healthcare discrete‑event simulation: An open guide and worked examples.NIHR open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid adoption of digital technologies across research disciplines underlines the need for accessible and reusable computational data and code. Methods: An anonymous, multidisciplinary survey examined researchers' perceptions, needs, barriers, and self-reported practices concerning open science, data and code publishing and reuse. Results: Of 254 respondents who initiated the survey, 133 completed it, mostly from Europe. Registered reports, replication studies and pre-registration were among the least frequently reported practices (52%, 38% and 42%, reported as Conclusions: As survey was disseminated through open-science channels using volunteer sampling, no response rate could be calculated, and the sample was self-selected toward researchers already engaged with reproducibility. Findings should therefore not be generalized to the wider research community. Within this group, the central finding is a gap between awareness and implementation. High endorsement of open and reproducible practices coexists with lower self-reported adoption. Responses also emphasized the need for structural incentives and institutional support, reflecting perceived limitations in time, resources, expertise, and professional recognition.
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.