Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]

• Main Authors: Danny Valdez, Colby J. Vorland, Andrew W. Brown, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Justin Otten, Richard Ball, Sean Grant, Rachel Levy, Dubravka Svetina Valdivia, David B. Allison
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: F1000 Research Ltd 2020-10-01
• Series: F1000Research
• Online Access: https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1235/v1

Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does ‘spin’ in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research).