Which action is most likely to help mitigate reproducibility problems in the journal publication process?

Moving away from a review process that favors only positive results significantly contributes to mitigating reproducibility problems in the journal publication process. When journals tend to prioritize positive or novel findings, they inadvertently create a bias towards publishing studies that yield significant results, which may not be representative of the overall research landscape. This environment can lead to a skewed understanding of scientific knowledge and diminish the visibility of studies that report negative or null results, which are equally important for a comprehensive and accurate body of literature.

By promoting an inclusive review process that values all types of research outcomes—regardless of whether they demonstrate a positive effect—journals can enhance the overall quality and reproducibility of the scientific record. This approach encourages researchers to conduct and report rigorous studies without the apprehension that only favorable results are worthy of publication, fostering a culture of transparency and rigor that is essential for reproducibility.

In contrast, increasing the speed of the peer review process or shortening the methods section may compromise the thorough evaluation and clarity of research, which can lead to issues in reproducibility. Recommending peer reviewers by prospective authors can also introduce biases and conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity of the review process. Hence, focusing on a balanced approach to publishing, which includes negative results, is paramount for