Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions

Across disciplines, researchers increasingly recognize that open science and reproducible research practices may accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. While initiatives, training programs, and funder policies encourage researchers to adopt reproducible research and open science practices, these practices are uncommon inmanyfields. Researchers need training to integrate these practicesinto their daily work. We organized a virtual brainstorming event, in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, to discuss strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. Here, weoutline eleven strategies, concentrated in three areas:(1)offering training, (2)adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements, and (3) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation,and provide links to resources. Our goal is toencourage members of the research community to think creatively about the many ways they can contribute and collaborate to build communities,and make reproducible research and open sciencetraining the norm. Researchers may act in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees. Institutionalleadership and research administration andsupport staff can accelerate progress by implementing change across their institution

Gastrointestinal Hormones in Healthy Adults: Reliability of Repeated Assessments and Interrelations with Eating Habits and Physical Activity

Background: Gastrointestinal hormones (GIHs) are crucial for the regulation of a variety of physiological functions and have been linked to hunger, satiety, and appetite control. Thus, they might constitute meaningful biomarkers in longitudinal and interventional studies on eating behavior and body weight control. However, little is known about the physiological levels of GIHs, their intra-individual stability over time, and their interaction with other metabolic and lifestyle-related parameters. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study is to investigate the intra-individual stability of GIHs in normal-weight adults over time. Methods: Plasma concentrations of ghrelin, leptin, GLP-1 (glucagon-like-peptide), and PP (pancreatic polypeptide) were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in 17 normal-weight, healthy adults in a longitudinal design at baseline and at follow-up six months later. The reliability of the measurements was estimated using intra-class correlation (ICC). In a second step, we considered the stability of GIH levels after controlling for changes in blood glucose and hemoglobin A1 (HbA1c) as well as self-reported physical activity and dietary habits. Results: We found excellent reliability for ghrelin, good reliability for GLP1 and PP, and moderate reliability for leptin. After considering glucose, HbA1c, physical activity, and dietary habits as co-variates, the reliability of ghrelin, GLP1, and PP did not change significantly; the reliability of leptin changed to poor reliability. Conclusions: The GIHs ghrelin, GLP1, and PP demonstrated good to excellent test–retest reliability in healthy individuals, a finding that was not modified after adjusting for glucose control, physical activity, or dietary habits. Leptin showed only moderate to poor reliability, which might be linked to weight fluctuations, albeit small, between baseline and follow-up assessment in our study sample. Together, these findings support that ghrelin, GLP1, and PP might be further examined as biomarkers in studies on weight control, with GLP1 and PP serving as anorexic markers and ghrelin as an orexigenic marker. Additional reliability studies in obese individuals are necessary to verify or refute our findings for this cohort

Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions

Peer reviewed: TrueReproducible research and open science practices have the potential to accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs, and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. However, these practices are uncommon in many fields, so there is a clear need for training that helps and encourages researchers to integrate reproducible research and open science practices into their daily work. Here, we outline eleven strategies for making training in these practices the norm at research institutions. The strategies, which emerged from a virtual brainstorming event organized in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, are concentrated in three areas: (i) adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements; (ii) training; (iii) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation, and provide links to resources. We also highlight the importance of allocating resources and monitoring impact. Our goal is to encourage researchers – in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees – to think creatively about the many ways they can promote reproducible research and open science practices in their institutions.</jats:p