IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0348512.html

What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers’ perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Kozula
  • Nicholas J DeVito
  • Patrick Onghena
  • Cinzia Colombo
  • Leonie A Dudda
  • Paula Muñoz Teno
  • Veerle Van den Eynden

Abstract

Debates and policy initiatives addressing research reproducibility have expanded considerably in recent years. Yet, many of these measures remain generic and risk overlooking the lived realities of research practice. This study aims to explore researchers’ perspectives on the barriers, facilitators, and motivators that shape reproducible research across diverse fields and career stages, using qualitative methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 60 researchers affiliated with universities and research institutions across the European Union and the United Kingdom. Participants were sampled to ensure diversity in discipline, career stage, gender, and geography. The interviews explored experiences with barriers and facilitators for reproducible research, and the data were analyzed using framework analysis with a hybrid inductive–deductive approach. Five interrelated themes described barriers and facilitators influencing reproducibility: navigating the research ecosystem (incentives and policies of institutions, journals, and funders); social and cultural dynamics as drivers and barriers (disciplinary norms, generational differences, competition, and collaboration); resourcing reproducibility (skills, infrastructure, guidelines and standards, time, funding, and awareness); inside the research process (field-specific constraints, methodological transparency, research material sharing, and external restrictions); and personal commitment to shared responsibility (reflective motivations, pragmatic drivers, and perceptions of accountability). Researchers described reproducibility as less of an individual choice but as a socially and institutionally mediated activity, dependent on enabling conditions such as supportive policies, adequate infrastructure, and equitable resource distribution. Reproducibility reform cannot rely solely on individual researcher commitment or one-size-fits-all policies. Effective interventions must account for disciplinary and methodological diversity, provide targeted resources and training, and realign incentive structures to reward transparency and rigour. These findings highlight reproducibility as a collective responsibility across the research ecosystem, requiring coordinated action by researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. Promoting reproducible practices in this systemic, context-sensitive manner is essential for fostering a more credible, equitable, and sustainable scientific enterprise.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Kozula & Nicholas J DeVito & Patrick Onghena & Cinzia Colombo & Leonie A Dudda & Paula Muñoz Teno & Veerle Van den Eynden, 2026. "What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers’ perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-29, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0348512
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348512
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348512&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0348512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0348512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.