Research Agora: from hidden data to dynamic, reproducible knowledge

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70000/cj.2026.78.718

Keywords:

Research waste, reproducibility crisis, Research Agora, new publication models, Marbles, Open Science, research assessment

Abstract

Publication bias and the reproducibility crisis are rooted in outdated evaluation practices and erode trust in science. Research assessment reform focuses on the quality and impact of research, as opposed to article counts and journal impact factors. Research Agora emerged as an open science platform that provides the tools for this new assessment, by providing a new publication model, Marbles: short, open, peer-reviewed reports that are linked to published research articles and that are designed for sharing replications, negative results, among others. Marbles tackle the reproducibility crisis while reducing research waste and publication bias. This initiative enriches the scientific record and gives credit for the invisible work of researchers and reviewers, an approach that benefits researchers, institutions, and society.

References

Amaral OB et al. (2025) Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science. biorXiv.

American Society for Cell Biology (2012) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Retrieved from https://sfdora.org/.

Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452–454.

Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F (2019) The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nat Commun 10:322.

Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet 374:86–89.

Cosgrove A, Flintoft L (2017) Trialing transparent peer review. Genome Biol 18:173.

Dickersin K, Min YI (1993) NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials Doc No 50.

Errington TM, Mathur M, Soderberg CK, Denis A, Perfito N, Iorns E, Nosek BA (2021) Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology. eLife 10.

European Commission & CoARA signatories (2022) Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment and launch of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). Retrieved from https://coara.eu/.

Gerwing TG, Allen Gerwing AM, Avery-Gomm S, Choi C-Y, Clements JC, Rash JA (2020) Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 5:9.

Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520:429–431.

Research Agora. Available at: www.researchagora.com [Accessed January 22, 2026].

Rosengaard LO, Andersen MZ, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S (2024) Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review. J Evid Based Med 17:351–359.

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247.

Published

2026-04-10

How to Cite

Barriuso-Ortega, I., & Hernández-Malmierca, P. (2026). Research Agora: from hidden data to dynamic, reproducible knowledge. Cybrarians Journal, (78), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.70000/cj.2026.78.718