Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews

Shokraneh, Farhad

Abstract

Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia. This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields. Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to repeat the research and to gain the same or similar results. In addition, irreproducibility limits the translation of research findings into practice where the same results are expected. To find the solutions, the Interacademy Partnership for Health gathered academics from established networks of science, medicine and engineering around a table to introduce seven strategies that can enhance the reproducibility: pre-registration, open methods, open data, collaboration, automation, reporting guidelines, and post-publication reviews. The current editorial discusses the generalisability and practicality of these strategies to systematic reviews and claims that systematic reviews have even a greater potential than other research designs to lead the movement toward the reproducibility of research. Moreover, I discuss the potential of reproducibility, on the other hand, to upgrade the systematic review from review to research. Furthermore, there are references to the successful and ongoing practices from collaborative efforts around the world to encourage the systematic reviewers, the journal editors and publishers, the organizations linked to evidence synthesis, and the funders and policy makers to facilitate this movement and to gain the public trust in research.

Citation

Shokraneh, F. (2019). Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews. World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 7(3), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i3.66

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Mar 25, 2019
• Online Publication Date: Mar 26, 2019
• Publication Date: Mar 31, 2019
• Deposit Date: Apr 1, 2019
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 1, 2019
• Journal: World Journal of Meta-Analysis
• Publisher: Baishideng Publishing Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 66-76
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i3.66
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1722783
• Publisher URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v7/i3/66.htm