[Image above] Credit: Yurchanka Siarhei / Shutterstock
As any young scientist quickly learns, producing a novel result one time is exciting, but reproducing it reliably is what moves the discovery from fluke to certified breakthrough. Yet even after your group guarantees the result, the ability of other groups to replicate your findings is the true test of certainty.
For other groups to successfully replicate a study, all aspects of the original experiment must be reported in detail within the journal paper announcing the results (or made available in a public repository). But accomplishing this task is more difficult than it may seem. Even simple aspects, such as differences in magnetic stirring patterns, can result in significantly different outcomes if not matched exactly to the original study.
The growing fields of nanoscience and nanotechnology often struggle with reproducibility and replication. On that tiny scale, minor variations during the synthesis process can lead to drastically different experimental outcomes. This challenge was exemplified by the “moment of truth” discussions regarding graphene purity in 2018, which shed light on the lack of quality control mechanisms for commercial graphene at that time.
Fortunately, the past decade has witnessed many developments in the nano field to overcome some of these challenges with reproducibility and replication. For example, new synthesis methods and characterization tools have improved standardization and consistency of commercial graphene quality.
Many challenges in nanomaterial production remain, however. That is why Peter Bøggild, professor at the Technical University of Denmark, convened a multi-institution group to develop practical guidelines that support reproducibility in 2D materials science.
Their expert recommendation, published in Nature Reviews Physics, categorizes common reproducibility challenges in 2D materials research across seven stages of the research process: funding, planning, execution, reporting, peer review, citation, and follow-up. For each stage, they offer concrete guidelines and actions that individuals and groups can take to improve the reproducibility of their research.
To support these efforts, Bøggild and his colleagues introduce two complementary tools in the paper.
- Standardized Template for Experimental Procedures (STEP): This detailed reporting format is “designed to maximize replicability by capturing critical experimental conditions, materials, failure modes, safety, and outcomes.”
- Reproducibility Charter (ReChart): This structured checklist is “for declaring reproducibility goals in funding proposals and scientific papers.”
Although these tools were developed with 2D materials research in mind, “their use should be straightforward in physical and materials science and, with some modification, applicable to other natural science and technological disciplines as well,” the group writes.
In a LinkedIn post, Bøggild says that even if this paper does not have a large effect on the reproducibility crisis, “We hope at least to start a discussion, to provide concrete, helpful advice that funding agencies, publishers, educational institutions, companies, media, and of course researchers can implement to make research more like what it was supposed to be.”
The paper, published in Nature Reviews Physics, is “Protocols and tools to enable reproducibility in 2D materials research” (DOI: 10.1038/s42254-025-00875-9).
