In this episode of SIAcast, Jonny Coates and co-host Emmanuel Boakye trace how concerns about unreliable findings grew into a global movement for better science. From psychology's replication debates to laboratory biology and open science reform, the episode looks at why reproducibility became one of the defining conversations in modern academia.

Featuring voices from the UK Reproducibility Network, the African Reproducibility Network and the Brazilian Reproducibility Network, the discussion goes past the headlines to ask a harder question: is science broken, or simply adapting? Guests discuss transparency, incentives, research culture, AI, academic pressure and community-driven reform. Rather than a story about failure, this is a story about scientists working together to improve the systems they work within.

Key Takeaways

• Networks connect the isolated: Reproducibility networks were built to link researchers who were each working alone on the same problems.
• The UKRN model has three parts: Grassroots researchers, university leadership and stakeholders such as funders and publishers, coordinated in one structure.
• "Crisis" is contested: Several guests question the word, arguing the issue is tied to incentives, transparency and research culture rather than to fraud.
• Disciplines differ: Reproducibility means different things in psychology, lab biology and qualitative research, and there is no single fix.
• Open practices are becoming standard: Data sharing, documentation, better statistics and transparent workflows are increasingly central to research quality.
• Community may be the strongest safeguard: Collaborative fields such as the Drosophila research community appear to support reproducibility and sharing on their own.

Biographies

Co-host

Emmanuel Boakye is the Founder and Executive Director of the African Reproducibility Network (AREN), which he started in 2022 through the eLife Community Ambassadors program. AREN works across the continent on open science practices, research culture and reproducibility, running training and building local communities of practice at universities and research institutes.

Guests

Marcus Munafò is Professor of Biological Psychology at the University of Bristol and a co-founder of the UK Reproducibility Network, launched in 2019. His work covers research integrity, reproducibility and open research, and he chairs UKRN's supervisory board.

Olavo Amaral is Professor at the Leopoldo de Meis Institute of Medical Biochemistry at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. He coordinates the Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative, a multi-laboratory replication project, and is a founding member of the Brazilian Reproducibility Network.

Bruno Lemaitre is a researcher in Drosophila immunity and a co-author of ReproSci, a retrospective analysis of 1,006 claims from 400 papers published between 1959 and 2011. He has also written on how scientific communities respond to replication efforts.

Eduarda Centeno is co-Executive Director of the Brazilian Reproducibility Network, where she leads community engagement, training and advocacy. Her work focuses on culture change, education and widening access to reproducible research practices.

Chapter Timestamps

00:00 – Introducing the reproducibility crisis
01:23 – What is the UK Reproducibility Network?
03:30 – Why convening researchers, institutions and funders matters
04:45 – Why reproducibility networks exist
06:42 – How UKRN was created
13:52 – The global spread of reproducibility networks
14:04 – Building the African Reproducibility Network (AREN)
17:44 – Is reproducibility really a "crisis"?
20:57 – Measuring reproducibility vs measuring quality
24:36 – Reproducibility challenges in bioscience
27:11 – Bruno Lemaitre's Drosophila reproducibility project
31:31 – Concerns about the future of academia
32:36 – What reproducibility networks actually do
34:48 – Inside the Brazilian Reproducibility Network
36:27 – MOOCs, training and changing research culture
39:45 – Is science improving?
42:26 – AI, universities and the future of research
46:15 – Why community matters in science
48:10 – What changes academia still needs
51:41 – How researchers can get involved
52:14 – Can we still trust scientific knowledge?
54:41 – Final reflections: improving science together

Music: Upbeat Corporate by JP Bianchini

Produced by Rippling Ideas for the Science Integrity Alliance

But this isn’t a doom-and-gloom story. Featuring insights from research integrity experts Joanna Diong and René Aquarius, the conversation explores the human, institutional, and systemic forces shaping modern science. From perverse incentives and publication pressure to grassroots sleuthing communities fighting back, this episode asks a critical question: can we still trust science, and if so, what will it take to protect that trust?

Key Takeaways

• The scale of the problem has changed: Scientific errors and fraud aren’t new, but AI and paper mills are amplifying them dramatically.
• Peer review is under strain: Overworked reviewers and overwhelmed editors are struggling to maintain quality control.
• AI is a double-edged sword: It helps detect fraud (e.g., image duplication tools) but also enables large-scale fabrication.
• Incentive systems are broken: Metrics like publication count and H-index can encourage questionable research practices.
• “Stealth corrections” undermine trust: Papers can be altered post-publication without any formal notice to readers.
• Responsibility is diffuse: No single actor can fix the system; change requires collective effort across the ecosystem.

Biographies

Co-host

Yagmur Ozturk is a PhD candidate in the ERC Nanobubbles project based at Grenoble Alpes University, France. Within this project, she works on building semi-automatic systems to help with post-publication peer review. She also serves as a maintainer for the Collection of Open Science Integrity Guides (COSIG), working on curating accessible guides for everyone to do forensic peer review. 

Guests

René Aquarius is a biomedical scientist working at the Neurosurgery department of the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Besides his regular work, which focuses mainly on systematic reviews, as well as in vivo, in vitro, and clinical research in the field of vascular neurosurgery, he has also been active as a so-called "science sleuth" for the last two years. As a science sleuth, he is focusing mostly on finding image-related issues in scientific articles.

Dr. Joanna Diong is a Senior Lecturer at The University of Sydney. Her research program aims to improve the value of health and medical research by using epidemiological methods to find and test ways to improve research quality. She serves as Research Integrity Advisor for the Faculty of Medicine and Health, champions good research practices through the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS), and has been awarded for her contributions to peer review and improving research quality. 

Chapter Timestamps

• 00:00 – The “impossible rat” and why trust in science is under pressure
• 01:44 – AI in research: tool or threat?
• 03:04 – AI-generated fraud and hallucinated citations
• 05:17 – Peer review under strain & publishing incentives
• 07:43 – Why research integrity matters (historical context)
• 08:53 – René’s origin story: spotting widespread issues
• 11:20 – How institutions handle research integrity
• 15:28 – What happens when misconduct is reported
• 18:05 – Why researchers cut corners
• 21:23 – Introducing COSIG and open integrity guides
• 24:24 – What are stealth corrections?
• 27:48 – Risks and backlash faced by sleuths
• 29:05 – Can we tell fraud from honest mistakes?
• 31:28 – How the research community responds
• 35:45 – Why integrity tools need to be accessible
• 36:32 – Who is responsible for fixing science?
• 41:20 – Rethinking peer review and trust systems
• 46:24 – What listeners can do to help
• 48:39 – Final reflections: the future of trust in science

Music: Upbeat Corporate by JP Bianchini. Produced by Rippling Ideas for the Science Integrity Alliance.