“There are multiple lines of evidence, both theoretical and empirical, that have begun to bring the reproducibility of a substantial segment of scientific literature into question,” says Ioannidis. “We are getting millions of papers that go nowhere.”

There are several reports that acclaim the facts on how big the crisis might be! See for an overview of the reports in here by Moshe.  

It is not entirely clear how science can be made more reproducible (1). So does doing open-science assure reproducibility of a research? (2) if it is, how it can be quantified/measured? Through citations? Citations may never allow us to depict the reproducibility of a research article, which is evident by the replication studies performed most recently (3).  Majority of the replication studies that have been conducted are primarily on highly cited article from high impact journals and unfortunately they failed to keep up the expectations about their reproducibility/replicability.



One primary reason why research may be called as “Re” - “Search” and not just search because it may always starts with reuse (no source found!). Scientists pave new discoveries/inventions based on the facts which are reported earlier. Hence researchers tend to cite previous research that paved a path to the new discovery.

**If there could be a place to report how researchers have been using, what they have been citing!
**

It will be more intriguing to see how one used a research piece that he/she has been citing formally in their research articles.

Reuse feedback may include, replications, using alternative materials, procedures, deriving new insights, report & crowdsource the challenge of reproducibility or reusability.

If at all reuse of research be reported

It enables to understand

  • How fellow researchers used the published artefacts they have been citing,
  • Do researchers replicate/reproduce the published artefacts even before drawing insights/new use cases.
  • Do researchers make any changes to materials/steps while replicating/reproducing a published artefact.
  • If researchers tried reusing/reproducing and couldn’t reuse, what might have been missing-in while doing so.

It enables to derive

  • Reuse/replications as an outcome to funded research rather than funding replication studies altogether which usually demands more pressure on funders. 10mn$ for doing research now, and another few million$ in the future just to access if this could be replicated (4).
  • How many ways a particular research artefact can be reused/reproduced, and what are the factors that could have limited it’s reusability/reproducibility?
  • 80% of the research could not be easily reproducible/reusable. So it wasn’t easy to reuse/reproduce a piece of research. If these reuse efforts be recognised? can this become a crowdsourced effort to make research reproducible.

src: www.phdcomics.com
By leaving a reuse feedback, researchers can contribute to reproducibility of a research artefacts, and by letting others know how they have been able to reproduce/reuse/replicate, a researcher can facilitate reproducibility of the same.

Team OpenReuse


References:

  1. https://blogs.plos.org/thestudentblog/2016/08/05/the-irreproducibility-crisis-an-opportunity-to-make-science-better/
  2. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/980b4k/how_are_scientists_gonna_solve_the/
  3. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication-effort-succeeds-just-two-five-cancer-papers
  4. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/make-replication-studies-normal-and-essential-part-science-dutch-science-academy-says