Embedding Replication and Reproducibility Throughout NIH Research: Key Reminders for Applications, Awards, and a New Highlighted Topic

The reliability of biomedical research is foundational to public trust in science and to ensuring that findings can ultimately benefit patients and communities. NIH’s Gold Standard Science plan further advances this commitment by encouraging a culture that values replication and reproducibility, as well as promoting practices that strengthen confidence in scientific knowledge. 

In support of this plan, NIH has launched a new Replication and Reproducibility Initiative to drive, incentivize and institutionalize replication and reproducibility efforts across the biomedical research enterprise. While NIH has long recognized the importance of embedding rigor, transparency, and reproducibility as critical elements for strong study design in research, studies show we have more to do (see this 2025 eLife article and 2025 and 2019 National Academies sources as examples) 

Today, we are sharing some reminders of these expectations alongside a newly posted Highlighted Topic that supports continued progress in this area. 

A New Highlighted Topic to Enhance Scientific Rigor, Transparency and Replicability
In addition to reinforcing expectations for rigor in NIH-supported research, we continue to invest in efforts that address knowledge gaps and strengthen the scientific community’s ability to implement rigorous practices. A recently posted Highlighted Topic exemplifies NIH’s commitment to spur innovative investigator-initiated research around:

• Developing new tools and methods to help ensure experiments are optimally designed and research outputs are described with sufficient details and metadata
• Shifting scientific norms to better incentivize rigorous and reliable research practices
• Improving adoption of rigorous research practices through effective outreach, such as at scientific meetings and educational programs

As a reminder, NIH Highlighted Topics represent important research priority areas where we encourage investigator-initiated research ideas through a parent announcement or other broad funding opportunity. Keep in mind that Highlighted Topics are not funding opportunities themselves. This April 2026 article also has useful reminders to consider when interested in a particular topic. 

Considerations When Developing Applications 
When preparing an application, investigators should address how the following four areas apply to their proposed research (see NOT-OD-16-011). Peer reviewers assess whether these elements are appropriately addressed as part of review:

• Rigor of prior research
  Applicants should critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the studies that form the foundation of their proposal—for example, identifying potential concerns such as small sample sizes or lack of appropriate controls.
• Rigorous experimental design
  Proposed approaches should be structured to minimize bias and support robust conclusions, including the use of practices such as randomization and blinding, when appropriate.
• Consideration of biological variables
  Relevant biological factors—such as sex, age, or genetic background—should be incorporated into study design and analysis plans (for example, including both male and female animals or analyzing outcomes by sex).
• Authentication of key resources
  Critical materials and resources should be validated to ensure reliability, such as confirming cell line identity or assessing antibody specificity.

Investigators can find additional resources on the NIH Grants and Funding site, including tools like the Experimental Design Assistant, guidance on sample size estimation, and examples of authentication plans. the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke also has various helpful resources to support rigor and transparency in research. Archived Nexus articles from December 2018 and October 2016  may also be a helpful reference.

Expectations Following Award
Attention to rigor does not end once an award is made. Recipients are expected to maintain and document rigorous practices throughout the lifecycle of the project.

Examples of what could be included during annual progress reporting: 

• Highlighting steps taken to ensure robust and unbiased results
• Describing findings and explaining how the study design and methods (e.g., controls, sample size, or analysis) support those results
• Discussing any challenges encountered in implementing rigorous study design and how they were addressed
• Reporting on the availability of data, code, and other research outputs as appropriate

Looking Ahead
Echoing what the NIH Director said last summer when announcing the NIH Unified Funding Strategy, “replicable, reproducible, and generalizable research must serve as the basis for truth in biomedical science.” NIH will continue its momentum to advance rigor and reproducibility across the biomedical research enterprise. By supporting investigators in adopting strong scientific practices, NIH aims to ensure that the research it funds remains innovative, trustworthy, and impactful.