Reactions: Solving the reproducibility crisis in science

Letters to the editor

Reproducibility of scientific findings

I found the timing and tone of the article on reproducibility particularly interesting given the current state of politics (C&EN, March 17, 2025, page 20). But that set aside, what I did not read from the author of this article was a little simple advice, like, scientists need to pick up their phones and use them for what they were initially intended for.

This advice, which I was given by professor Peter Schultz in 1992, accelerated my trajectory through the Chemistry Department of the University of California, Berkeley, and thanks to the new friend I made at Harvard University in the process, I published an article in Science and received my doctorate degree 3 years later.

What I have found since is that there is much more to the methods section than most journals allow one to write, and thus simple but important details are left out­—and probably more than 90% of the time. So even though I do think there are some bad scientists and some findings cannot be reproduced, I also believe that 90% of scientists may be too intimidated to simply pick up the phone and get the details. If they do, maybe they, too, will make a new friend.

James Prudent
Madison, Wisconsin

Csaba Szabo’s proposed solutions to address reproducibility are impractical. The individual institutions where the principal investigators (PIs) work are already charged with monitoring the scientific integrity of the research. In what way will the block grants to those institutions improve integrity monitoring? In what way does he suggest implementing the reproducibility studies? Who wants to spend their time to simply reproduce someone else’s research rather than conducting their own? This will create a separate class of researchers just for that. Then the question of their competency comes into play.

A more practical way is to have knowledgeable reviewers carefully review the manuscripts before publication with just compensation for their effort. Currently, many journal editors are left to the generosity of someone accepting to review the paper regardless of their expertise in the specifics. The journals are trying to give credit to reviewers on Publons, but how much of that credit is valued by the promotion and tenure committees at universities is doubtful.

The review of papers and grants is a service that researchers do only as a goodwill gesture to fellow scientists and for the potential to improve their own knowledge. You seldom see an established investigator agreeing to review a paper unless it is from someone they know. Journals should demand all the raw data be submitted along with the manuscript and adequately compensate the reviewers (as well as provide resources) for their time to scrutinize the data. Fair compensation might at least entice some with proper expertise to accept papers for review. Otherwise, the editors continue to be at the mercy of whoever responds to review requests. If reviewers are properly compensated, some may be inclined to assign a beginning graduate student or a senior undergraduate student to test the reproducibility, when it is in doubt. This could also serve a training purpose for students.

I concur with Szabo’s proposal to increase the penalty for fraudulent research as a major deterrent. Currently, those investigations are almost a sham. Big named faculty get away with even the most egregious fraud, and some poor postdoc or graduate student is the victim. If they punish the PI for such research fraud the same way they fine them for any lab safety violations and add a loss of their job, the situation can change. Otherwise, they simply throw the poor underling under the bus and continue to enjoy their status.

Krishna Rao Maddipati
Detroit