PREreview of "Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey"

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/10078957. This review reflects comments and contributions from Melissa Chim, Stephen Gabrielson, Dibyendu Roy Chowdhury, Pen-Yuan Hsing, and Kimberly Powell. Review synthesized by Stephen Gabrielson. The study presents a cross-sectional survey investigating biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research, building upon a 2016 Nature survey on the same topic. The study aimed to explore researchers' perceptions and experiences surrounding reproducibility in the biomedical field. Major comments: Given the 7% response rate, there is a potential risk that the individuals who responded differ significantly from those who didn't. This might introduce non-response bias, which should be addressed. For instance, researchers concerned about reproducibility might be more likely to respond to a survey on the topic, skewing the results. Conversely, researchers not concerned or who have faced reproducibility challenges in their own work might avoid the survey, leading to an underrepresentation of these views. The authors aim to describe perceptions of reproducibility specifically in the biomedical community. However, the introduction offers examples of irreproducibility only in areas of education, psychology, and social sciences. Would recommend expanding the background/introduction/discussion to include other studies focused on reproducibility issues in biomedicine. The Reproducibility Project Cancer Biology may be a good place to start: https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology Third paragraph of the discussion mentions "other stakeholders have taken actions to attempt to foster reproducibility" and note respondents perceived institutions as absent from these efforts. I'm concerned that respondents were not asked about perceptions/awareness of other stakeholder efforts. What other stakeholders are being considered? Does any evidence exist that respondents would have been more aware of those efforts? How does this claim interpret results from S4 that the majority of training resources respondents were aware of where based at the institutional-level? Minor comments: The authors gave a broad definition of reproducibility near the beginning of this paper, and used it interchangeably with replicability in the rest of the text. There have been attempts to formally...