Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

Madeleine Pownall, Flávio Azevedo, Laura M. König, Hannah R. Slack, Thomas Rhys Evans, Zoe Flack, Sandra Grinschgl, Mahmoud M. Elsherif, Katie A. Gilligan-Lee, Catia M. F. de Oliveira, Biljana Gjoneska, Tamara Kalandadze, Katherine Button, Sarah Ashcroft-Jones, Jenny Terry, Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir, Filip Děchtěrenko, Shilaan Alzahawi, Bradley J. Baker, Merle-Marie PittelkowLydia Riedl, Kathleen Schmidt, Charlotte R. Pennington, John J. Shaw, Timo Lüke, Matthew C. Makel, Helena Hartmann, Mirela Zaneva, Daniel Walker, Steven Verheyen, Daniel Cox, Jennifer Mattschey, Tom Gallagher-Mitchell, Peter Branney, Yanna Weisberg, Kamil Izydorczak, Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Ann-Marie Creaven, Suzanne L. K. Stewart, Kai Krautter, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Samuel J. Westwood, Patrícia Arriaga, Meng Liu, Myriam A. Baum, Tobias Wingen, Robert M. Ross, Aoife O'Mahony, Agata Bochynska, Michelle Jamieson, FORRT

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.
Original languageEnglish
Article number221255
Number of pages28
JournalRoyal Society Open Science
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 17 May 2023

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: T.G.M. is supported by a UKRI/ESRC rapid call grant, K.M.S. by Health Research Board Applying Researchinto Policy and Practice Fellowship, R.M.R. is supported by the John Templeton Foundation (grant ID: 62631) and B.J.I.by a Northern Ireland Department for the Economy Research Studentship.


  • open science
  • open research
  • pedagogy
  • teaching
  • learning
  • students
  • open scholarship
  • open educational resources


Dive into the research topics of 'Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this