The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) is a global leader in improving the validity and transparency of scientific research. Through its high-impact meta-research and international fellowship program, METRICS fosters innovation in research integrity. One of its flagship initiatives is the METRICS International Forum, a biweekly online webinar featuring discussions on key meta-research topics. If you have interesting meta-science topics to present, feel free to propose your topic via this link: METRICS International Forum | Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford

On Thursday, February 13th, Dr. Mariska Leeflang from AMC Amsterdam had the opportunity to present the OSIRIS scoping review during the forum. While the audience was small, the engagement level was high, sparking meaningful discussions on the value of interventions, randomized controlled trials, theories of change, and the barriers to adopting new research practices.

The OSIRIS scoping review delves into the complexity of reproducibility and how researchers perceive it. One of the major takeaways from both the study and the forum discussion is the variation in how reproducibility is understood. If a scientific article is retracted, does that automatically mean the research was not reproducible? Should randomized controlled trials always be required to validate interventions aimed at improving research integrity? Are some interventions so fundamental to responsible research that they should be applied without requiring rigorous validation?

The review found limited evidence supporting many interventions designed to improve reproducibility. However, that does not necessarily mean these interventions are ineffective. The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Some interventions may still be valuable and should be implemented regardless, but the critical question remains: how do we encourage researchers to adopt these best practices?

One of the most compelling debates during the forum was who should be responsible for driving change in research practices. Should the onus fall on individual researchers to take the initiative, on institutions to enforce policies, on funding agencies to provide incentives, or on publishers to set higher standards for publication? There is no simple answer, but one emerging idea is the development of a theory of change—a framework that outlines how and why researchers shift toward more transparent and reproducible practices.

Ultimately, while systemic support is crucial, the responsibility for conducting good science still falls largely on individual researchers. As the discussion at the METRICS Forum reinforced, change must be encouraged at multiple levels, from personal commitment to institutional and policy-driven initiatives. The OSIRIS scoping review has opened up important conversations, and we look forward to further exploring these challenges and solutions with the broader research community.

For those interested in contributing to the ongoing dialogue on meta-research, the METRICS International Forum welcomes proposals for presentations on relevant topics. The conversation around open science and reproducibility is far from over, and continued engagement will be key to shaping the future of research integrity.

Dr. Mariska Leeflang’s presentation of the OSIRIS scoping review at the METRICS International Forum is available to watch HERE

Stay tuned for updates on other OSIRIS activities! Visit our website to read our blogs and events section and follow us on social media to discover what’s new and how you can get involved!

OSIRIS “Creating Trust in Open Science & Reproducibility through Accessibility and Transparency!”