{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,13]],"date-time":"2026-10-13T12:04:20Z","timestamp":1791893060402,"version":"4.3.4"},"update-to":[{"DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.172013.1","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]],"date-time":"2026-08-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1786406400000}},{"DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.172013.2","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]],"date-time":"2026-08-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1786406400000}}],"reference-count":39,"publisher":"F1000 Research Ltd","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]],"date-time":"2026-08-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1786406400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"name":"European Union\u2019s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme","award":["Grantagreement101094725"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["Grantagreement101094725"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["f1000research.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["F1000Res"],"abstract":"<ns3:p>\n                    Background Rapid adoption of digital technologies across research disciplines underlines the need for accessible and reusable computational data and code. Methods An anonymous, multidisciplinary survey examined researchers\u2019 perceptions, needs, barriers, and self-reported practices concerning open science, data and code publishing and reuse. Results Of 254 respondents who initiated the survey, 133 completed it, mostly from Europe. Registered reports, replication studies and pre-registration were among the least frequently reported practices (52%, 38% and 42%, reported as\n                    <ns3:italic>Never applied<\/ns3:italic>\n                    ), while open software and OA publishing demonstrated widespread adoption (83% and 69%) of the respondents, respectively. The main perceived barriers to data sharing were\n                    <ns3:italic>lack of time<\/ns3:italic>\n                    (60%) and\n                    <ns3:italic>insufficient funding<\/ns3:italic>\n                    (44%). For code sharing, they were\n                    <ns3:italic>lack of time to prepare documentation<\/ns3:italic>\n                    (65%),\n                    <ns3:italic>publication pressure<\/ns3:italic>\n                    (51%), and\n                    <ns3:italic>insufficient funding<\/ns3:italic>\n                    (42%). Journal requirements (score: 482) and institutional incentives and rewards (score: 439) were the highest-ranked supporting measures. 28% of respondents indicated that they never tried to reproduce a study, and when replication was attempted, researchers often found that open data (70%), open code (71%), and metadata (86%) were never, rarely, or only sometimes available in the publications they read.. Open-ended responses emphasized training, career-stage guidelines, and basic programming skills. Conclusions As survey was disseminated through open-science channels using volunteer sampling, no response rate could be calculated, and the sample was self-selected toward researchers already engaged with reproducibility. Findings should therefore not be generalized to the wider research community. Within this group, the central finding is a gap between awareness and implementation. High endorsement of open and reproducible practices coexists with lower self-reported adoption. Responses also emphasized the need for structural incentives and institutional support, reflecting perceived limitations in time, resources, expertise, and professional recognition.\n                  <\/ns3:p>","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.172013.3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]],"date-time":"2026-08-11T06:04:09Z","timestamp":1786428249000},"page":"1278","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Exploratory Insights into Barriers and Open Practices for Computational Reproducibility in Scientific Research"],"prefix":"10.12688","volume":"14","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-0869-3000","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Yuri Andrei","family":"Gelsleichter","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Soil Science, Institute of Environmental Sciences G\u00f6d\u00f6ll\u0151 2100 Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rita","family":"Banzi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Laboratory for Health Regulatory Policies Milan Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Florian","family":"Naudet","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"CHU Rennes, Inserm, Irset (Institut de recherche en sant\u00e9, environnement et travail)-UMR_S 1085, CIC 1414 (Centre of Clinical Investigation of Rennes) Rennes University of Rennes"},{"name":"Paris Institut Universitaire de France"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Constant","family":"Vinatier","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"CHU Rennes, Inserm, Irset (Institut de recherche en sant\u00e9, environnement et travail)-UMR_S 1085, CIC 1414 (Centre of Clinical Investigation of Rennes) Rennes University of Rennes"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Istv\u00e1n","family":"Kert\u00e9sz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute of Food Science and Technology Budapest 1118 Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-6886-5751","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Monika","family":"Varga","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute of Animal Sciences Kaposvar 7400 Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"2560","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5281\/ZENODO.5960048","article-title":"Quarto [Computer software].","author":"J Allaire","year":"2022","journal-title":"Zenodo."},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e163","DOI":"10.7717\/peerj-cs.163","article-title":"Towards computational reproducibility: Researcher perspectives on the use and sharing of software.","volume":"4","author":"Y AlNoamany","year":"2018","journal-title":"PeerJ Computer Science."},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"452-454","DOI":"10.1038\/533452a","article-title":"1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.","volume":"533","author":"M Baker","year":"2016","journal-title":"Nature."},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e1005755","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pcbi.1005755","article-title":"Unmet needs for analyzing biological big data: A survey of 704 NSF principal investigators.","volume":"13","author":"L Barone","year":"2017","journal-title":"PLoS Comput. Biol."},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"531-533","DOI":"10.1038\/483531a","article-title":"Raise standards for preclinical cancer research.","volume":"483","author":"C Begley","year":"2012","journal-title":"Nature."},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"869-870","DOI":"10.1242\/dmm.012955","article-title":"San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.","volume":"6","author":"R Cagan","year":"2013","journal-title":"Dis. Model. Mech."},{"key":"ref46","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"383-400","DOI":"10.1080\/14498596.2019.1654944","article-title":"Improving the reproducibility of geospatial scientific workflows: The use of geosocial media in facilitating disaster response.","volume":"66","author":"V Cerutti","year":"2021","journal-title":"J. Spat. Sci."},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2085-2088","DOI":"10.1145\/2882903.2899401","article-title":"ReproZip: Computational Reproducibility With Ease.","author":"F Chirigati","year":"2016","journal-title":"Journal Article."},{"key":"ref8","article-title":"Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment.","year":"2022"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"512-522","DOI":"10.1177\/09567976221140828","article-title":"What\u2019s in a Badge? A Computational Reproducibility Investigation of the Open Data Badge Policy in One Issue of Psychological Science.","volume":"34","author":"S Cr\u00fcwell","year":"2023","journal-title":"Psychol. Sci."},{"key":"ref10","article-title":"Research profiles descriptors.","year":"2023"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e132","DOI":"10.2196\/jmir.6.3.e34","article-title":"Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).","volume":"6","author":"G Eysenbach","year":"2004","journal-title":"J. Med. Internet Res."},{"key":"ref36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"303-315","DOI":"10.1086\/209351","article-title":"Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.","volume":"20","author":"R Fisher","year":"1993","journal-title":"J. Consum. Res."},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.17605\/OSF.IO\/6YSRH","article-title":"Study protocol, responses, and analysis\u2014Survey on computational reproducibility covering quantitative research.","author":"Y Gelsleichter","year":"2024"},{"key":"ref42","article-title":"Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices.","volume":"289","author":"D Gomes","year":"1 November 2022","journal-title":"Proc. Biol. Sci."},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5281\/ZENODO.14809","author":"S Hettrick","year":"2014","journal-title":"Zenodo."},{"key":"ref38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"38","DOI":"10.1007\/s13194-021-00362-9","article-title":"Epistemic issues in computational reproducibility: Software as the elephant in the room.","volume":"11","author":"A Hocquet","year":"2021","journal-title":"Eur. J. Philos. Sci."},{"key":"ref15","article-title":"International Environmental Modelling and Software Society.","year":"2024"},{"key":"ref16","article-title":"International Environmental Modelling and Software Society.","year":"2024"},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e124","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pmed.0020124","article-title":"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.","volume":"2","author":"J Ioannidis","year":"2005","journal-title":"PLoS Med."},{"key":"ref41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"369-386","DOI":"10.1080\/24694452.2023.2276115","article-title":"Reproducible Research Practices and Barriers to Reproducible Research in Geography: Insights from a Survey.","volume":"114","author":"P Kedron","year":"2024","journal-title":"Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr."},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5281\/zenodo.6409077","article-title":"Improving Your Statistical Inferences.","author":"D Lakens","year":"2022"},{"key":"ref40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1645-1646","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1421412111","article-title":"Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach.","volume":"112","author":"J Leek","year":"2015","journal-title":"Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A."},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2378023119849803","DOI":"10.1177\/2378023119849803","article-title":"Successes and Struggles with Computational Reproducibility: Lessons from the Fragile Families Challenge.","volume":"5","author":"D Liu","year":"2019","journal-title":"Socius."},{"key":"ref21","article-title":"Docker: Lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment [Computer software].","author":"D Merkel","year":"2014","journal-title":"Linux Journal."},{"key":"ref22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"Article 1","DOI":"10.1038\/s41562-016-0021","article-title":"A manifesto for reproducible science.","volume":"1","author":"M Munaf\u00f2","year":"2017","journal-title":"Nat. Hum. Behav."},{"key":"ref44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"719-748","DOI":"10.1146\/annurev-psych-020821-114157","article-title":"Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science.","volume":"73","author":"B Nosek","year":"2022","journal-title":"Ann. Rev. Psychol."},{"key":"ref24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1126\/science.aac4716","article-title":"Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.","volume":"349","year":"2015","journal-title":"Science."},{"key":"ref25","article-title":"What is Open Access? | Open Access.","year":"2025"},{"key":"ref26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1226-1227","DOI":"10.1126\/science.1213847","article-title":"Reproducible Research in Computational Science.","volume":"334","author":"R Peng","year":"2011","journal-title":"Science."},{"key":"ref29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"041005","DOI":"10.1088\/1748-9326\/ac5cf8","article-title":"The critical need to foster computational reproducibility.","volume":"17","author":"R Reinecke","year":"2022","journal-title":"Environ. Res. Lett."},{"key":"ref30","article-title":"Researchers of Springer Nature communities from different disciplines are invited to contribute to the important topic of science reproducibility by filling the survey (see link below) and by providing their views and insights.","year":"2024"},{"key":"ref31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2139\/ssrn.1550193","article-title":"The Scientific Method in Practice: Reproducibility in the Computational Sciences.","author":"V Stodden","year":"2010","journal-title":"SSRN Electron. J."},{"key":"ref32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e21101","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0021101","article-title":"Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions.","volume":"6","author":"C Tenopir","year":"2011","journal-title":"PLoS ONE."},{"key":"ref43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"60","DOI":"10.1038\/s41597-022-01143-6","article-title":"A large-scale study on research code quality and execution.","volume":"9","author":"A Trisovic","year":"2022","journal-title":"Sci Data."},{"key":"ref33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1101\/2025.04.02.645026","article-title":"Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science.","author":"O Amaral","year":"2025","journal-title":"Scientific Communication and Education."},{"key":"ref34","article-title":"Human Development Index (HDI).","year":"2025"},{"key":"ref35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.6084\/M9.FIGSHARE.4055448.V1","article-title":"Towards Open Research: Practices, experiences, barriers and opportunities.","author":"V Van Den Eynden","year":"2016"},{"key":"ref45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"160018","DOI":"10.1038\/sdata.2016.18","article-title":"The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.","volume":"3","author":"M Wilkinson","year":"2016","journal-title":"Sci. Data."}],"container-title":["F1000Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3\/iparadigms","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,13]],"date-time":"2026-10-13T11:29:07Z","timestamp":1791890947000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]]},"references-count":39,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.172013.3","relation":{"has-version":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.12688\/f1000research.172013.2","asserted-by":"subject"},{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.12688\/f1000research.172013.1","asserted-by":"subject"}],"has-review":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.5256\/f1000research.204036.r509944","asserted-by":"subject"},{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.5256\/f1000research.204036.r509944","asserted-by":"object"}]},"ISSN":["2046-1402"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2046-1402","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,11]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Indexed","URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3#article-reports","order":0,"name":"referee-status","label":"Referee status","group":{"name":"current-referee-status","label":"Current Referee Status"}},{"value":"10.5256\/f1000research.197184.r473257, Sheeba Samuel, Technische Universitat Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Saxony, 09 Apr 2026, version 2, 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved","URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v2#referee-response-473257","order":0,"name":"referee-response-473257","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.5256\/f1000research.189689.r442319, Frank Olaf Ostermann, University of Twente, Enschede, 22 Jan 2026, version 1, 2 approved with reservations","URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v1#referee-response-442319","order":1,"name":"referee-response-442319","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Monika Varga<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 02 Mar 2026<\/i>; Dear Dr. Frank Olaf Ostermann, We are grateful for your insightful comments and for drawing our attention to areas requiring further elaboration. Your feedback has considerably improved the quality of our work. Below please find our point-by-point reply.  *A good thing about open peer review is that reviews can refer to a previous one. In this case, the first review has already done a remarkable job at evaluating the paper. In fact, there is no statement I would disagree with, and several statements that I strongly support. My review will thus briefly state those I particularly consider important and then try to add a few additional points from my perspective. But first, I want to emphasize that the authors have done a commendable job at making their own work open and reproducible. There is extensive information on all aspects of the study available. \n<i>Thank you for the observation! Appreciated!<\/i>  *However, the paper itself is indeed quite exploratory in nature, and a different study design could allow more systematic and inferential analysis that goes beyond the descriptive statistics that are reported. On a sidenote, I could not find information on the members of the consortium that designed the survey - were they sufficiently diverse (backgrounds, career stages, ...) to replace a pilot study with respondent feedback? \n<i>Thank you for the observation! We have reframed the manuscript as an exploratory survey throughout the text. We clarified the scope and addressed representativeness concerns. Also, the survey was designed by a diverse group of scientists from Agronomy, IT, Geomatics to Medical field, PhD to Senior researchers. Regarding the pilot, aside of technical aspects we collect feedback on survey length, typo, logical aspects, dropping and inclusion of questions. These points were addressed in the text. <\/i>  *I also view the lack of systematic definition of terminology as problematic - given the variety of terminology surrounding open and reproducible research (reproduction, replication, generalisation, robustness, reanalysis, repeatability, ...), it seems necessary to clarify the authors' use of these terms and their use in the survey. \n<i>Thank you for the observation! The concept of \u2018Computational reproducibility\u2019 was deeper explored and detailed. Also, the definition of \u2018Replication\u2019 was also provided. Most of the survey questions gravitated around reproducibility, however pointing to computational reproducibility. As the tooltip (pop-up) tool in the survey platform was available. The definition of Replication studies was also present in the survey. <\/i>  *The referenced literature is not a strong point of this paper, which refers to &quot;recent studies&quot; several times, but then these studies are from more than 10 years ago. While of course newer literature is not always more relevant, in the context of open and reproducible research, recency matters. The reproducibility crisis was 'diagnosed' only two decades ago, with many papers during the following ten years or so trying to determine the scope of the problem. It's been only during the last decade that research proposing and evaluating solutions has become more prominent, and such works would be very relevant for this paper. There is a hint that the paper (or at least parts of it) has been in the works for some time and might need an update: it refers to studies from 2018 and 2019 as being &quot;five years ago&quot;. I've also wondered whether there was a second round of literature review after the survey. The open survey questions might contain valuable hints at more recent studies, worthy following up. In any case, additional insights would be possible with a more systematic comparison with other surveys. From my own discipline, which is admittedly a smaller one and thus not often popping up in cross-disciplinary research, I could cite (Kedron et al.,2024) as well as my own work. \n<i>Thank you for the observation! By the time we wrote the protocol and first draft (end of 2023), the time span was the above mentioned. Thank you also for enlightenment with this citation, we have used gathering academic search tools for papers and these ones were, yet, left out. Both currently adjusted in the text, as eight studies were added. Some examples of peer-reviewed studies include Gomes et al. (2022); Trisovic et al. (2022); Nosek et al. (2022); and Wilkinson et al. (2016). We also incorporate Kedron et al. (2024) and Cerutti et\u202fal. (2021), as suggested by the reviewer.<\/i>  *Lastly, the interpretation and discussion of the survey outcomes could be more assertive. For example, the repeated claim that making work more reproducible requires significant time and effort and thus merits additional rewards - I think this needs some contextualization and critical appraisal. A basic level or reproducibility does not require that much effort or skill: non-proprietary software, structured documentation, and a deposition of code and data on a public repository. For most of the research that I have been reviewing over the past 15 years, achieving this basic level of reproducibility would not have been too hard. But maybe the survey respondents tried to provide an answer for a statement that is seems to be missing in the survey: Funding, rewards, and recognition for reproducing and replicating studies. Because that is the final goal, why we should make studies more reproducible: so that eventually there is a documented\/published attempt at reproduction or replication. If only a tiny fraction of all output ever actually gets reproduced, then the question of why to spend even moderate effort on making something reproducible is a valid concern. This important perspective is only discussed in passing in a very short section. \n<i>Thank you for the observation! We are grateful for this incisive critique, which touches on a genuinely important conceptual distinction that our manuscript had not sufficiently developed. We agree that the claim that reproducibility requires &quot;significant effort&quot; warrants critical examination. We have now added a paragraph to address this concern. We thank the reviewer for bringing this perspective; it sharpens the practical contribution of the paper. <\/i>","URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3#referee-comment-15575","order":2,"name":"referee-comment-15575","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.5256\/f1000research.204036.r509944, Lex Bouter, Amsterdam Universities Medical Center, Amsterdam, 26 Aug 2026, version 3, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/f1000research.com\/articles\/14-1278\/v3#referee-response-509944","order":3,"name":"referee-response-509944","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"Funding\r\nThe OSIRIS project was funded by the European Union\u2019s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement 101094725. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.","order":4,"name":"grant-information","label":"Grant Information"},{"value":"This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.","order":0,"name":"copyright-info","label":"Copyright"}]}}