Reproducibility in Research
Three test tubes, one bubbling over and making a mess.

A lack of consistent reproducibility in some pre-clinical research has serious implications for translating those findings from bench to bedside. This is a problem that requires urgent corrective action. Restoring confidence in the rigor of pre-clinical biomedical research will require all stakeholders to be a part of the solution, including basic scientists, academic institutions, industry, and publishers.

APS Resources

Reproducibility Journal Club

Use this journal club activity to gain insight into the challenges of improving scientific rigor. It includes articles and sample questions recommended by speakers at the APS Reproducibility Symposium.

APS Advises NIH on Sex as a Biological Variable

The APS response to an NIH Request for Information (RFI, NOT-OD-14-128) on developing policies for the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in pre-clinical research studies involving animals and cells.

Professional Integrity: Best Practices for Publishing Your Research

APS Education Department's Professional Skills Training Course on Publication Ethics.

Outside Resources

New >> NIH One Pager on Reproducibility in Grant Applications

A One Pager by NIH breaking down various aspects of reproducibility and rigor and explaining where they should be addressed in grant applications [PDF].

New >> iBiology: Shai Silberberg Video on Unconscious Bias & Publications Bias

In a video produced by iBiology, NINDS Program Director Shai Silberberg discusses two key contributors to irreproducibility and offers suggestions for mitigating these factors.

FASEB: Enhancing Research Reproducibility

A report by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) with recommendations for a variety of stakeholders aimed at promoting the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical and biological research.

NIH: Rigor and Reproducibility

Access point for NIH announcements and resources on improving scientific rigor.

ILAR Workshop Brief: Reproducibility in Research with Animal Models

A summary of the National Academy of Sciences's Roundtable on Science and Welfare in Laboratory Animal Use. The document is available as a free PDF download or to read online.

APS Reproducibility Symposium

Reproducibility in research:
What are the problems? How can we fix them? What happens if we don’t?

The APS Science Policy Committee’s symposium at Experimental Biology 2015 explored scientific rigor and the issues that affect the reliability of research results. Chaired by SPC member Carrie Northcott, the symposium featured presentations by Shai Silberberg (NIH), Malcolm Macleod (Edinburgh University) and Richard Nakamura (NIH). Each participant sat down for a brief video interview, and the entire presentations are available both as slides and with audio synced to the powerpoint slides.


Interviews with the speakers and chair of the Science Policy Committee’s symposium at EB 2015 on rigor and reproducibility of research results.


Downloadable PowerPoint slides from the speakers of the Science Policy Committee's symposium on reproducibility in research.

Audio Slides Syncs

Full presentation audio synced to the talk slides

Twitter Highlights

A Storify aggregation of the APS Reproducibility Symposium tweets.

Interview: Introduction to Reproducibility Symposium

Carrie Northcott explains why the APS’s Science Policy Committee decided to tackle the topic of reproducibility at Experimental Biology 2015.

Interview: How do we improve research methods and reporting?

Shai Silberberg outlines some sources of the reproducibility problem.

Interview: Animal models for human diseases—how can we improve translation of effects to humans?

Malcolm Macleod explains flaws in some disease models and how to correct them.

Interview: What role should peer review play assessing study design and evaluating the “scientific premise” of proposals?

Richard Nakamura discusses how NIH plans to address reproducibility through changes to peer review.