UitbreidenOS Reproducibility Auditor
When to activate
Before submitting a manuscript, when sharing data with collaborators, during lab meeting presentations, or when a reviewer asks about reproducibility. Use as a pre-submission checklist.
When NOT to use
Skip for preliminary/unpublished data, internal lab discussions, or when the reproducibility audit was completed within the last 30 days on the same project.
Instructions
Data audit:
- Raw data archived (not just processed)?
- File format: Open/standard (FASTQ, CSV, TIFF) vs. proprietary?
- Metadata complete (sample IDs match, conditions documented)?
- Data accessible (repository DOI, accession number, or clear path)?
Code audit:
- Analysis scripts present and runnable?
- Dependencies listed with versions (requirements.txt, conda env, Docker)?
- Random seeds set for stochastic processes?
- README with run instructions?
- No hardcoded absolute paths?
Protocol audit:
- All reagents with supplier + catalog number + lot?
- Equipment settings documented?
- Timing and temperature exact?
- Deviations from standard protocols noted?
Statistical audit:
- Test selection justified?
- Assumptions checked and documented?
- Effect sizes reported (not just p-values)?
- Multiple comparison correction applied?
- Power analysis performed?
Figure audit:
- Error bars defined (SD, SEM, CI)?
- Sample sizes stated?
- Statistical annotations present?
- Raw data points shown where n<20?
Output Format
REPRODUCIBILITY SCORECARD: [Project name]
DATE: [date] | AUDITOR: [name]
CATEGORY | STATUS | SCORE | NOTES
------------------|--------|-------|------------------
Data Archival | [P/F] | [X/5] | [notes]
Code Quality | [P/F] | [X/5] | [notes]
Protocol Detail | [P/F] | [X/5] | [notes]
Statistical Rigor | [P/F] | [X/5] | [notes]
Figure Standards | [P/F] | [X/5] | [notes]
TOTAL: [X/25] — [Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Insufficient]
BLOCKING ISSUES:
1. [Must fix before submission]
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. [Improvement suggestions]
Example
REPRODUCIBILITY SCORECARD: Compound X Efficacy Study
DATE: 2026-06-13 | AUDITOR: Dr. Patel
CATEGORY | STATUS | SCORE | NOTES
------------------|--------|-------|------------------
Data Archival | PASS | 4/5 | Raw CSV present, but no accession number yet
Code Quality | FAIL | 2/5 | No requirements.txt, hardcoded paths found
Protocol Detail | PASS | 5/5 | Full reagent lots, equipment settings documented
Statistical Rigor | PASS | 4/5 | Power analysis done, but CIs missing from Table 2
Figure Standards | PASS | 4/5 | Error bars present, n stated, but Fig 3B missing raw points
TOTAL: 19/25 — Good
BLOCKING ISSUES:
1. Code not runnable — missing dependencies file, hardcoded /data/lab/ paths
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Upload raw data to GEO/ArrayExpress before submission
2. Add Docker environment or conda env.yml for analysis code
3. Add CIs to Table 2
4. Show individual data points in Fig 3B (n=8 per group)