Reproducibility for everyone: a community-led initiative with global reach in reproducible research training

Reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method and sets apart science from pseudoscience. Unfortunately, a majority of scientists have experienced difficulties in reproducing their own or someone else’s results. This inability to confirm scientific findings negatively impacts individual scientists, funding bodies, academic journals, pharmaceutical drug development and the public’s perception of science. Factors causing irreproducible results can arise from nearly every aspect of the scientific process, and typically reflect a lack of in-depth training in reproducible research practices. Here, we present the Reproducibility for Everyone (R4E) initiative, a collaboration between researchers from diverse scientific disciplines and industry partners who aspire to promote open and reproducible research practices. We have developed a customizable workshop series targeting researchers at all levels and across disciplines. Our workshop series covers the conceptual framework of reproducible research practices followed by an overview of actionable research practices. To date, we have reached more than 2000 researchers through over 25 workshops held at international conferences and local meetings. By incorporating further contributions from the scientific community, we hope to expand this valuable resource for teaching transparent and reproducible research practices. Our initiative demonstrates how a shared set of materials may form the basis for a global initiative to improve reproducibility in science. The workshop materials, including accompanying resources, are available under a CC-BY 4.0 license at www.repro4everyone.org

Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC

Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel’s scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC’s three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC’s Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their finding