Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction explicitly that this paper is an integrative review aimed at synthesizing how reproducibility and replicability are discussed in qualitative research, as well as identifying their barriers and enablers. It sets the stage by discussing reproducibility crisis in science in quantitative fields e.g. health and biomedical sciences which has driven policy change thereby enhancing transparency, open science and replication. The authors note that these policy reforms are often based on positivist epistemologies, which may not apply in qualitative research paradigms. The authors, at the introduction, note the limited understanding of how open science practices intersect with the epistemological foundations of qualitative research. The objective is achieved through two thoughtfully formulated research questions.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The methodology here is highly appropriate because the authors have employed integrative review. This methodology allows synthesis of diverse theoretical, empirical and grey literature across different disciplines. The systematic search, transparent preregistration, and mixed coding approaches align with the objective of the study, and explore complex yet contested concepts such as reproducibility and replicability in qualitative research.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusions are highly supported because they are made from a large diverse sample of 248 sources across disciplines. The conclusions that traditional idea of reproducibility, and replication often conflict with qualitative epistemologies though can be adapted are consistently grounded on the data they present. They are well aligned with the objectives of the study.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The PRISMA diagrams, bar charts, and thematic tables present the scope of the study clearly, its frequencies and key patterns. They have been used well to summarize complex data, yet with clarity. They rationate with the narrative, and enhance easy interpretation of the results. As such, they allow readers to grasp pattern, distribution, and Key themes at a glance.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors have logically organized their findings around their research questions. they have used consistent terminology, and have explained key concepts with examples drawn from the data. They have distinguished between differing viewpoints, effectively summarized patterns, and linked their results to the broader debate. They are concluding directly from the evidence and have highlighted practical implication and the directions of future research.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

It addresses a significant knowledge gap in literature by systematically examining how reproducibility and replicability are understood in qualitative research. Synthesis of a whole 248 diverse literature sources gives a comprehensive framework which challenges dominant positivist assumptions, thus advocating for epistemic inclusivity.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The language here is clear, well-structured, and academically sound. There is precise use of terminology. Sentences are coherent. The arguements are also logically ordered. It meets high standards of scholarly work.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

This preprint explores reproducibility and replicability in qualitative research. It addresses major gap in the current discourse. It is conceptually rich, and practically relevant.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

It is well-structured, methodologically sound, and clearly written. It addresses a timely, yet underexplored topic with scientific rigor and depth.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.