Abstract:We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was "significant." The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a "pressure to publish" with 62% of participants indicating it "always" or "very often" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.

Improving reproducibility in animal research

Impact of quality and transparency in scientific writing on the reduction of animal usage in experimental protocols: a review based in pertinent literature

Systematic heterogenization revisited: Increasing variation in animal experiments to improve reproducibility?

Systematic heterogenization for better reproducibility in animal experimentation

Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation

Improving reproducibility in animal research by splitting the study population into several ‘mini-experiments’

Irreproducibility in Searches of Scientific Literature: A Comparative Analysis.

Animals, quality and the pursuit of relevance

Recommendations to improve use and reporting of statistics in animal experiments

Decatastrophizing research irreproducibility

Repetition and reproduction of preclinical medical studies: taking a leaf from the plant sciences with consideration of generalised systematic errors

On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

Animal researchers' views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions

Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

The Impact of Preclinical Irreproducibility on Drug Development

Tackling reproducibility: lessons for the proteomics community

A computational reproducibility study of PLOS ONE articles featuring longitudinal data analyses

The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research