top of page

Upcoming Journal Clubs

ReproducibiliTea is a global network of journal clubs that meet to discuss issues, papers, and ideas about improving science, including reproducibility, open science, meta-research, philosophy of science, and research methods. More info on ReproducibiliTea here:

Journal clubs will run on the last Thursday of every month at 4pm on Zoom. To make these meetings really accessible we’ve opted to set them up for half an hour (with the option to stick around for the full hour for those who are keen). Our first ReproducibiliTea meeting will be on Thurs 23rd Feb at 4pm (the Zoom link will be sent out via the mailing list). 

Sign up for the mailing list:

Previous Journal Clubs

8th November 2022

The Paper: O’Connor, C., et al. (2020). ‘False Beliefs and the Social Structure of Science: Some Models and Case Studies’. In Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture, edited by David M. Allen and James W. Howell, 37–48. Cham: Springer International Publishing. - open-access version here.

6th September 2022

The Paper: Purgar, M., Klanjscek, T., & Culina, A. (2021). Identify, quantify, act: tackling the unused potential of ecological research.

8th April 2022

Lead by Paul Glasziou

The Paper:  Besançon L, Peiffer-Smadja N, Segalas C, et al. Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jun 5;21(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y. PMID: 34090351; PMCID: PMC8179078.

Abstract: In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at

Comments: The paper provides a useful 3-stage framework of problems and potential open science solutions, but raised several new research questions.

Presentation and record of comments here: Open Science Saves lives

bottom of page