How should we address non-reproducibility?

Inter-experimental variability poses a significant challenge to reproducibility in experimental biology, hindering scientific progress and the translation of research findings. This variability arises from numerous factors, including subtle differences in reagents, equipment calibration, environmental conditions and unaccounted biological variation. Despite the existence of guidelines such as ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) and MDAR (Materials Design Analysis Reporting), the reporting of crucial experimental details often remains incomplete or inconsistent across studies. Recent analyses have suggested that the insufficient reporting of materials and methods may substantially contribute to non-reproducibility in biological research. This underscores the need for more comprehensive and standardized reporting practices as the best approach to ensure good science. To address this issue, publishers, editors and reviewers must enforce existing standards more rigourously, while authors and researchers should prioritize the comprehensive reporting of experimental details. Innovative approaches such as experimental heterogenization and open science initiatives are emerging to enhance reproducibility. A multifaceted approach involving stricter guideline enforcement, recognition of replication studies and fostering a culture that values reproducibility over publication speed and sensationalization is essential for improving the reliability and credibility of experimental biology research. This article is part of the theme issue 'Embracing variability in comparative physiology: why it matters and what to do with it'.