4.0 Editorial Material

Finding the best fit for improving reproducibility: reflections from the QUEST Center for Responsible Research

Journal

BMC RESEARCH NOTES
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06108-x

Keywords

Reproducibility; Institutions; Behaviour change; Responsible research; Stakeholders; Research culture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Improving the reproducibility and trustworthiness of biomedical research requires engaging stakeholders at all levels. The QUEST Center for Responsible Research aims to develop and implement new approaches to improve research culture and practice, tailored to stakeholder needs. By sharing lessons from working groups, the authors highlight common themes that have influenced the success of many projects.
Increasing the reproducibility and trustworthiness of biomedical research requires engaging stakeholders from all levels in an institutional setting. The QUEST Center for Responsible Research aims to develop and implement new approaches to improve the culture and practice of research, tailored to the needs of these stakeholders. Members of the QUEST Center organised a brainstorm to reflect on the challenges and new opportunities encountered in implementing different projects through QUEST and share the lessons that working groups have learned over the first five years. The authors informally surveyed and interviewed working groups where relevant and highlight common themes that have influenced the success of many projects, including top-down and bottom-up engagement, managing expectations, the availability of expertise, ensuring sustainability, and considering incentives. The commentary authors conclude by encouraging the research community to view initiatives that promote reproducibility not as a one-size-fits-all undertaking, but rather as an opportunity to unite stakeholders and customise drivers of cultural change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available