Diaba‑Nuhoho and Amponsah‑Offeh 

BMC Research Notes (2021) 14:451 BMC Research Notes

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05875-3

COMMENTARY Open Access

Reproducibility and research integrity:

the role of scientists and institutions
Patrick Diaba‑Nuhoho1* and Michael Amponsah‑Offeh2

Abstract
Reproducibility and research integrity are essential tenets of every scientific study and discovery. They serve as proof
that an established and documented work can be verified, repeated, and reproduced. New knowledge in the bio‑
medical science is built on the shoulders of established and proven principles. Thus, scientists must be able to trust
and build on the knowledge of their colleagues. Scientific innovation and research discoveries especially in the field
of medicine has contributed to improving the lives of patients and increasing life expectancies. However, the growing
concerns of failure to comply with good scientific principles has resulted in issues with research integrity and repro‑
ducibility. Poor reproducibility and integrity, therefore, may lead to ineffective interventions and applications. Here we
comment on research reproducibility in basic medical and life sciences with regards to issues arising and outline the
role of stakeholders such as research institutions and their employees in addressing this crisis.
Keywords: Research integrity, Reproducibility, Research scientists, Research institutions, Stakeholders, Individual
contributions

Introduction indicate scientific misconduct, reproducibility promotes

Research integrity encompasses all the (un)known steps trust, ensures credibility and reliability of research out-
in establishing research from the proposal, perfor- comes [5]. Hence, a lack of it can destroy science result-
mance, and evaluation of research as well as the report- ing in mistrust between scientists as well as public
ing of results that comply with the accepted professional confidence in scientific findings and data. This commen-
codes and norms. Additionally, it ensures honesty, accu- tary delves into research reproducibility particularly in
racy, efficiency and objectivity in the scientific research the life and medical sciences.
[6]. The reproducibility, integrity and quality of research
plays critical role in not only enforcing and protecting Main text
good scientific policies and guidelines, but also safe- Scope and extent of reproducibility
guarding public confidence in research outcomes. How- It will be a daunting task to define the exact components
ever, the fundamental principle of scientific integrity and of how a reproducible research should be designed espe-
trustworthy research is the ability to reproduce initial cially in the life and medical sciences. This is because of
scientific outcomes and findings as well as the consisten- the great deal of variability in biological systems and the
cies in similar research findings from different groups [2]. complex techniques employed in the design and execu-
Although, the lack of reproducibility does not necessarily tion of such studies. Although, it is not essential and
expected to reproduce precise results, at least the major
findings and underlining conclusions from a research
*Correspondence: [email protected]
1
Division of Vascular Endothelium and Microcirculation, Department
must be potentially validated from similar studies. There-
of Medicine III, University of Technology Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, fore, reproducibility is more or less the ability to draw
01307 Dresden, Germany similar conclusions from replicates studies. Also, in our
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s) 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creat​iveco​
mmons.​org/​publi​cdoma​in/​zero/1.​0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Diaba‑Nuhoho and Amponsah‑Offeh BMC Research Notes (2021) 14:451 Page 2 of 4

field, reproducibility can be described as taking an exist- research process, collaboration with multiple stakehold-
ing dataset from a study, re-running the same analysis ers such as academics, regulators, publishers, institu-
strategy that was used, and hopefully producing the exact tions, funders, and government are required to address
same statistical findings, this is usually useful for spot- the multifaceted reproducibility crisis. Moreover, the
ting errors. On the other hand, replication is utilising the recent pandemic has exposed these issues, which indeed
same or very similar methods as an existing study to col- should be the foundation of science. We outline some
lect new data, analysing it, and producing the same pat- suggestive remedies to this crisis by addressing the spe-
tern of results to draw the same overall conclusions [8]. cific role of researchers and institutions.
However, the last couple of decades have revealed shock- First-off, researchers should be more open to share
ingly the irreproducibility of several studies to validate ideas, methods and data with thematic colleagues and the
their major conclusions. This was further heightened by public. Researchers should devote more time for care-
the inability of original authors to reproduce their own ful planning, design and execution of scientific research
experiments [2]. The manifestation of the reproduc- including the use of appropriate experimental methods
ibility crisis became more visible in clinical trials by the and statistical analysis, which are necessary to arrive at a
increasing failure of novel treatment strategies, which good and a reproducible research outcome. Though most
were efficacious in diseased animal models [7]. A recent researchers would probably like to do these things, they
survey revealed that at least 70% of scientists were unable feel overburdened to the point that systemic pressures
to reproduce studies from other scientists as well as the and misplaced incentives prevent them from doing these
inability of at least 50% of researchers to reproduce their things. Research group leaders and supervisors must
own work [1]. The increasing concerns of this reproduc- provide adequate supervision, mentorship, and training
ibility crisis has triggered the implementation of policies to early career researchers to design good experiments
and guidelines to safeguard research credibility and trust- from the onset. All research authors must be able to
worthiness. Therefore, in order to provide solutions, it is provide the raw data used in their study and should be
important to identify the root causes of the crisis. made accessible to everyone without barriers. Possibly
setting up and making accessible data repositories for
Factors that influence the reproducibility crisis published papers will allow for transparency and integ-
The scientific research is a complex process involving rity in the research arena. Primary data is very crucial
several stakeholders at multiple steps such as research in research findings, hence avenues to store and avoid
design, ethics and legal framework, funding, methods, manipulation is essential. One way to ensure reproduc-
documentation, publication and archival of research ibility of results is to have a clear and concise documen-
findings. Moreover, many scientists and research hope to tation. This could be done electronically or manually as
reveal or identify novel findings and therapies [5]. Hence, in safe book-keeping of research data and findings which
multiple factors contribute to the irreproducibility of a are openly accessible. Documentation could include
study. These include but not limited to, inadequate train- open workflows, registered study protocols and meth-
ing of researchers in experimental design and methodol- odology. These are important since documentation can
ogy such as randomization, bias, replication, statistical be misrepresented if not accessible as part of shortcuts
analysis, variations in sophisticated medical techniques and poor research practices, thus maintaining the crisis.
that are difficult to replicate, and variability in chemicals Within research groups, group leaders or supervisors
and reagents especially in experiments involving the use must recheck storage of experimental results and when
of antibodies. Additionally, the insufficient amount of in doubt, experiments must be repeated by individuals
time used for research, the bureaucracy and pressure to or others in the laboratory to confirm breakthrough find-
publish in high impact journals to compete for research ings. For instance, in data analyses, at least two research-
grants and positions as well as lack of proper supervi- ers should be tasked to do same analyses. In ensuring the
sion and mentorship further exacerbates the reproduc- completeness of data in the context of publication, sci-
ibility crisis [1, 3]. These may lead to researchers taking entists and journal editors must ensure that data should
shortcuts, not transparently reporting their work, or even be contextualized instead of over generalized. Since good
using questionable research practices. data also depends on proper laboratory management,
established and standardized protocols as well as good
Addressing the reproducibility crisis and calibrated equipment with required standards must
Researchers are at the forefront of innovative findings. be routinely checked. With chemical analyses, standards
The same have being at the centre of recent scientific may be analysed together with the samples. By so doing
misconduct in different scientific fields [4]. Although errors could be detected and corrected. A periodic inter-
researchers and scientists play a dominant role in the laboratory analysis to compare results in case of doubts is
Diaba‑Nuhoho and Amponsah‑Offeh BMC Research Notes (2021) 14:451 Page 3 of 4

also helpful as this will help to ensure the reproducibility

Sciensts/Researchers
of results. Managers of research laboratories must ensure
the implementation and enforcement of these measures.
Furthermore, research institutions must establish and Protecng against research bias
allocate more training and teaching resources particu- Mentorship/supervision

larly for early career researchers on the scientific research Standardised experimental methods

process including the experimental design, methods as

well as analysis, the management and publication of data
Support Support/
[7]. However, the training should not be limited to early collaboraon/ fund validaon
team science works
career scientists alone but to technicians, mid-career, Training
and senior researchers. Since much of the crisis can also Documentaon
be traced to mid-career and senior researchers engag-
ing in questionable practices and shortcuts out of habits,
because they have benefited from these over their longer Quality assurance Incenves/awards Independent oversight

careers. Hence, training should be provided across board Tools/resources Open science Long-term funding

and can be incorporated in the mentorship training of Accessibility/transparency

young scientists, tenure positions or funding schemes

which will be crucial in helping scientists understand the Research Instuons Funding Instuons
ethical implications of their work. This allows research-
Fig. 1 Potential responsibilities of each stakeholder and their
ers to dedicate and focus on the essential details of their intersectionality
study and eliminate research bias [2, 7]. In line with this,
the United State National Institute of Health developed
and implemented a mandatory training course in pro-
moting reproducibility and transparency of research Finally, publishers must promote the publication of
findings with special focus on good experimental design unexpected data and findings. This is very important as
for its fellows [3]. Also, extensive platform must be pro- within the scientific fraternity so call novel results are
vided to train researchers on the implications of research awarded by fast publication whereas those which have
integrity as well as avenues to discuss challenges. so called negative results are not published. Also, grant
Research institutions must ensure the transparency awarding institutions should be open to giving different
and accessibility of research by incentivizing research- teams resources for same work. In so doing one team
ers who promote open science through the publication becomes a check on the other. However, this can be very
of open data of their research findings. These incentives costly and difficult but the need to ultimately save more
could include long term research contracts, promotion, lives outweighs the cost when for instance many lives
assigning tenure positions and providing easily accessi- depend on research findings that could be translated into
ble research grants. This will ensure a clear and focussed new therapeutic findings like breakthrough drugs. Giving
direction in doing better and productive research, since different teams resources for same work, could also deny
withholding important data that may be timely and inno- other researchers the opportunity to explore new areas of
vative in order to secure promotion, tenure position or research and prevent the possibility of diversity in explor-
funds to sustain their career could hinder innovative pro- ing new frontiers of research.
gress. Additionally, institutions must endeavour to have Research integrity and reproducibility is very crucial.
and implement policies on good scientific practice with Here we summarise in a diagram, the individual and joint
special focus on reproducibility. This includes putting in roles of different stakeholders in addressing the repro-
place measures that allows research employees to submit ducibility crises (Fig. 1).
raw data upon request, which promotes transparency.
Over-reliance on publication in high impact journals Outlook
to assign tenure positions and promote researchers to a We all must be on the lookout and guard against any
higher career level must be reduced. Instead, institutions act that may undermine integrity of any research work.
must establish standard structures focusing on research Going forward, postgraduates, postdocs, supervi-
integrity and quality in assigning these positions. In addi- sors, technicians, laboratory managers and all who are
tion to providing resourceful tools and materials such as involved in research needs to have compulsory and
online storage servers, electronic laboratory notebook, periodic courses on research integrity throughout their
research institutions must reward, promote, and provide career and must be an integral part of their professional
guidelines on the publication of negative results [2, 7]. development. All hands must be involved in addressing
Diaba‑Nuhoho and Amponsah‑Offeh BMC Research Notes (2021) 14:451 Page 4 of 4

this crisis. This will require the participation and contri- 8. Tsang EWK, Kwan KM. Replication and theory development in
organizational science: a critical realist perspective. Acad Manag Rev.
bution of all, such as scientists, institutions, and different 1999;24(4):759–80. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​259353.
stakeholders to promote reproducibility and preserve the
integrity of research. Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑
Acknowledgements
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their excellent comments,
which have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript. The authors
thank colleagues for their inputs and discussion on the topic.

Authors’ contributions
PDN and MAO wrote the paper. PDN and MA designed, compiled, and com‑
posed the original draft. PDN and MAO reviewed and revised the final draft.
Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details
1
Division of Vascular Endothelium and Microcirculation, Department of Medi‑
cine III, University of Technology Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden,
Germany. 2 Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Technol‑
ogy Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.

Received: 6 October 2021 Accepted: 2 December 2021

References
1. Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature.
2016;533(7604):452–4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​53345​2a.
2. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the
standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116–26.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1161/​CIRCR​ESAHA.​114.​303819.
3. Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature.
2014;505(7485):612–3. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​50561​2a.
4. Mebane CA, Sumpter JP, Fairbrother A, Augspurger TP, Canfield TJ, Good‑
fellow WL, Guiney PD, LeHuray A, Maltby L, Mayfield DB, McLaughlin MJ,
Ortego LS, Schlekat T, Scroggins RP, Verslycke TA. Scientific integrity issues
in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: improving research repro‑
Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from:
ducibility, credibility, and transparency. Integr Environ Assess Manag.
2019;15(3):320–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ieam.​4119.
• fast, convenient online submission
5. Munafo MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP,
Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers EJ, Ware JJ, Ioannidis JPA. A manifesto for • thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(1): 0021. doi: https://​doi.​ • rapid publication on acceptance
org/​10.​1038/​s41562-​016-​0021
• support for research data, including large and complex data types
6. Steneck NH. Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Wash‑
ington: US Government Printing Office; 2007. • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
7. Strech D, Weissgerber T, Dirnagl U, QUEST Group. Improving the trustwor‑ • maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
thiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innova‑
tive and comprehensive institutional initiative. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(2): At BMC, research is always in progress.
e3000576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pbio.​30005​76.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions