Breaking barriers towards credible research: Outcomes of a workshop at the BNA Festival of Neuroscience 2025

Abstract

Understanding the specific barriers and possible solutions to credible research for early career researchers is key to enabling the next generation of scientists to implement these practices. Here we describe the outcomes of a workshop that tackled these issues, held at the BNA Festival of Neuroscience 2025. Workshop attendees highlighted various challenges to credible research that are highly relevant for early career researchers. In particular, time constraints were highlighted as a universal barrier across multiple credible research practices, and attitudes of more senior researchers/supervisors were perceived as an important challenge. Participants also highlighted solutions to help implement credible research that can be pursued by individual researchers, but, importantly, also emphasised the importance of “structural” solutions, requiring initiative by stakeholders, including academic institutions, journals and funders. We hope the summary of the workshop will foster active debate on the topic within the neuroscience community.

Concerns about replicability, reproducibility and transparency of scientific research, including in Psychology and Neuroscience (Baker, 2016; Open Science Collaboration, 2015), led to greater recognition and endorsement of credible research practices (British Neuroscience Association, n.d.; Christensen et al., 2020). This transition towards credible research comes with great benefits, but also challenges, particularly for postgraduate research students (PGRs) and early career researchers (ECRs), who make up a substantial portion of the research workforce but are less experienced than senior colleagues and typically employed short-term. These conditions create unique challenges to application of credible research practices (Gownaris et al., 2022). At the same time, as PGRs and ECRs are the future leaders and mentors in academia and beyond, it is particularly important to support them in conducting credible research.

In a workshop at the BNA Festival of Neuroscience 2025, we invited members of the Neuroscience community across career stages to discuss barriers and solutions towards credible research for PGRs and ECRs. Here, we summarise the workshop’s outcomes to foster debate on the topic.

Participants

Participants (N = 21) were mostly PGRs or ECRs, working mainly with human participants, but researchers using in vitro, in vivo and computational models were also represented (Figure 1). Although we aimed to attract participants across career stages, only one self-identified as later-career researcher, and there were no mid-career researchers.

Figure 1.

Workshop participants: career stage and neuroscience research models used.

Workshop proceedings

Participants completed a survey in which they rated the relevance of different barriers (e.g. time-consuming workflow of review and publication processes) to credible research led by PGRs and ECRs (Figure 2), and the extent to which such barriers should be addressed at an individual or structural level (Figure 3). The survey responses indicated that participants saw all items as more than moderately relevant. ‘Unclear value of credible science practices’ was rated as least relevant, suggesting that participants saw lack of knowledge and resources as more important barriers to credible science practices than uncertainty over their value. Except for ‘limited understanding of methodologies’, all barriers were rated as requiring more action at the structural than individual level. Finally, participants could list other barriers to credible science. This revealed that temporary contracts and attitudes of senior staff/supervisors were additionally perceived as barriers (Figure 4).

Figure 2.

Survey responses regarding the extent to which barriers to credible science are relevant to projects led by PGRs/ECRs.

Figure 3.

Survey responses regarding whether the barriers need to be addressed at mainly individual or institutional level.

Figure 4.

Survey responses to the open-ended question ‘are there any other barriers to credible science that have not been mentioned?’

Participants were then divided into four groups of four to five. Each group was allocated a challenge, selected based on survey responses on the relevance of barriers or based on responses to the open-ended question (the ‘Senior staff attitudes’ challenge).

Groups were asked to identify barriers affecting the ability to address the challenge, potential individual and structural solutions to these barriers, and any resources necessary to support such solutions. Before group discussion, we presented an example challenge to clarify the format of the activity (Table 1).

Table 1.

An example challenge with barriers and solutions as presented by workshop organisers prior to the participants’ discussion of challenges.

Challenge	Barriers	Individual solutions	Structural solutions
Low sample size/statistical power	1. Time/resources (e.g. not enough time/funding to collect appropriate amount of data) 2. Lack of knowledge of appropriate sample size (e.g. guidance in the field is unclear) 3. Resistance from supervisor/lab in changing how data are usually collected	1. Sequential design, multi-lab studies, repeated-measures design (Baumgartner et al., 2023; Neumann et al., 2017) 2. Concede limited power in papers 3. Using published guidance/guidance from adjacent fields (Brysbaert, 2019; Carneiro et al., 2018) 4. Using simulations to estimate sample size	1. Data-sharing 2. Funded project extensions for credible practices 3. Realistic expectations by funders/examiners/reviewers about what can be achieved within the time frame of a project/PhD 4. Training in credible practices for PGRs 5. Contact point on credible practices within a department to advise on issues and/or mediate disagreement with supervisor 6. More training for supervisors around credibility-related topics and how to support these in PGR/ECR projects

Participants identified many barriers to credible research, some shared across different challenges, including time constraints, knowledge of credible practices and limitations imposed by journals (Table 2). Time constraints were highlighted as a barrier across all challenges (see Gownaris et al., 2022 for similar findings). Although participants proposed some individual solutions, they highlighted the need for structural change. The view was that a shift in research culture to encourage credible research is required, and institutions and journals need to be part of this change.

Table 2.

Group discussions outcomes: challenges with barriers and solutions, as discussed by workshop’s attendees.

Challenge	Barriers	Individual solutions	Structural solutions
Senior staff attitudes	1. Ingrained practices, e.g. ‘this is the way we do things in this lab’ 2. Time constraints, e.g. PhD programmes have an allocated amount of time for completion 3. Fear of scooping, e.g. code being used without attribution 4. Supervisors’ career aspirations, e.g. publishing papers	1. Present ideas at lab meetings to persuade the lab group of the value of credible research practices 2. Preregister and embargo (for scooping) 3. If comfortable, start writing a private preregistration and time stamp when this is written 4. Implement credible research practices when you lead your own lab	1. Institutions should engrain credible research and reproducible practices at the start of PhD programmes. This process should involve supervisors and should provide them with guidance 2. Such principles and practices should be standardised within the organisation and there should be resources provided 3. Mandatory ReproducibiliTea (ReproducibiliTea Global, n.d.) meetings for supervisors 4. Realistic expectations for the amount of work PGRs students are expected to complete within their allocated timeframe 5. Incentives for supervisors to do credible research and promote this within their lab groups
Prioritising credible research	1. Costs, e.g. extra time it takes to follow credible research practices 2. Poor sample sizes 3. Knowledge of how to use reproducible methods, e.g. difficult to prioritise practices if not aware of them 4. Fear of being scooped, e.g. preregistration ideas being taken 5. Strict word limits on methods sections in journals	1. Preregistration 2. Sharing of resources 3. Follow accepted guidelines for certain procedures such as MIQE guidelines for qPCR (Bustin et al., 2009) 4. Putting methodological detail in the supplementary materials 5. Using guidance or power analyses to determine sample size prior to experimental work	1. Preregistration 2. Mandatory training in experimental design, statistical analysis and research methods, as part of undergraduate and postgraduate training, as well as at the start of PhD projects 3. Funders requesting experimental design information in application forms and providing feedback on credibility from grant review boards 4. A reproducibility ‘champion’ at institutions (possibly at the department level). A similar ‘champion’ for statisticians, who is accessible for everyone 5. Properly promoted ReproducibiliTea (ReproducibiliTea Global, n.d.) events at institutions 6. Experimental design tools, such as the NC3R’s EDA (Experimental Design Assistant, n.d.)
Publishing ‘non-sexy’ results	1. Time constraints in implementing credible research practices 2. Lack of training in preregistration and registered report processes 3. Resistance from editors and journals who want high-impact and novel results 4. Researchers are less likely to submit papers with ‘null’ results	1. More work put into learning methods for preregistrations and registered reports (but this is a drain on available time and supervisors may not approve) 2. Sample size justification to convince journal editors/peer reviewers that power was sufficient to detect an effect	1. Change in incentives for journals and editors so they are encouraged to publish ‘null’ results 2. A shift in culture so that ‘null’ results are viewed as equally worthy of publication as ‘positive’ results
Detailed planning and reporting of methods	1. Lab tradition 2. The unexpected 3. Time constraints (workload/project) 4. Journal word count limits	1. Increase collaboration 2. Ask experts and finalise overall experimental design prior to starting any experimental work 3. Provide a detailed supplementary material section 4. Share data publicly 5. Support journals without a strict word limit for Methods sections	1. Change the culture to be more accepting of credible research practices 2. Extensions (e.g. to PhD programmes) to support credible research practices 3. Enforce journals to comply with credible research guidelines

Notably, the workshop was advertised as focusing on research credibility and therefore self-selection of participants is likely. However, insight into barriers to credible research from people already interested in credible research may be particularly informative, as they are already self-motivated to engage in these practices but may be hindered to engage fully by the barriers.

Resources needed

Indicated resources can be broadly divided into ‘training’ and ‘incentives’. Training was proposed as mandatory/well-promoted, easily accessible, focusing on good and bad research practices, and aimed at not only PGRs and ECRs, but also supervisors/principal investigators. The call was not only for individual training in credible research practices, but also in how to mentor junior colleagues towards credible research. Extra funding was highlighted as required to cover additional time invested in credible research practices, extra ‘consumables’ (more participants/experimental animals), and dedicated roles to support credible research (e.g. ‘open research mentors’). Apart from funding, importance of other incentives, particularly for supervisors and principal investigators, was highlighted.

Conclusion

The workshop highlighted various barriers to credible research for researchers at early career stages. Partly, these can be addressed at an individual level, by the researchers themselves. However, sustainable solutions require not only motivation of individual researchers, but also structural changes to incentives, training and available guidance. Importantly, solutions should target not only PGRs and ECRs, but also supervisors and principal investigators.

There was also a call for action directed to other academic stakeholders: (1) journals to prioritise credible research (e.g. longer word limits for methods section, publication of null results, data sharing) and (2) funders to incentivise credible research practices in funding applications and prioritise projects adhering to such practices. Overall, participants highlighted a need for a shift in research culture to fully support credible research.