Constitution

Mission Statement

Replication Research (R2) is a non-commercial, diamond open-access, online only journal run for and by researchers who are interested in reproducibility and replicability. It is committed to the mission of providing high-quality scientific content, made freely available for a scientific and general audience worldwide. 

R2 is dedicated to repetitive research. For empirical reports, it publishes the following article types:

  • replication studies (i.e., studies re-examining a finding using different data than a specified original study such as close or conceptual replications)
  • reproduction or verification studies (i.e., studies re-examining a finding using the same data as a specified original study and introducing new analyses)
  • robustness studies (i.e., multiverse analyses or many analyst studies) 
  • multi-study articles that include only replications, only reproductions, or a mix of both
  • meta-analyses or reviews that focus on any of the article types above (e.g., aggregating the state of replicability across a field)

Empirical papers are selected based on them matching the journal scope, their transparency (e.g., quality of description of the study, open materials, open code, open data), and scientific rigor (e.g., reproducible findings, adherence to openness standards). Interest to the community and novelty can be part of a contribution’s discussion but must not be given as reasons for acceptance or rejection of submitted empirical manuscripts. R2 accepts registered reports for all studies except for reproduction studies (for these, results blind peer review is possible). R2 does not accept articles that estimate replicability based on non-replicated studies (e.g., using p-curve).

It publishes the following types of non-empirical articles:

  • Replication methods and perspectives (discussions of conceptual or methodological issues surrounding repetitive research)
  • Tutorials surrounding repetitive research
  • Comments on articles published by R2

The disciplinary scope of accepted works is defined in the journal materials and subject to vary as expertise in this domain is captured by the journal team.

R2 adheres to guidelines of scientific publishing as laid out by COS, ICMJE and COPE.

R2 endorses several of the values originally brought forward by Free Neuropathology: 

  • Free for authors: no article processing fee.
  • Free for readers: the journal is published open-access without paywalls or any other restrictions of access. Together, these two features constitute diamond open access. There is no income, no financial donation, no commercial advertising and no budget. Any expenses (editorial office, travelling, promotion, software, disk space etc) are covered by academic institutions.
  • Free from publisher means that R2 undertakes all activities which traditionally have been carried out by publishers, including but not restricted to copyediting, layout, permanent archiving of papers, maintenance of website, and promotion. This is based on the insight that the interest of commercial publishers in profit rather than in science has led to an economical and ethical crisis in scientific publishing.
  • Free formatting means that R2 refrains from exuberant formal requirements and highly detailed instructions for submitting authors, which abound in many scientific journals. However, R2 places much emphasis on a professional and appealing appearance of papers and supports consistent formatting within the paper according to authors´ preferences and general guidelines from their respective fields. After acceptance and a successful reproducibility check, articles will appear in the “online first” version with an R2 title page and the submitted formatting. Later, they are published via LaTeX. The handling editor will make a recommendation for the copy editing manager regarding the appropriate citation style.

Due to its embedding within the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) and the Münster Center for Open Science (MüCOS), the journal requires a few regulations which are the tenor of this constitution. For reasons of transparency the constitution is published on the journal website.

Journal Ownership

R2 is co-owned by the Münster Center for Open Science and the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (which are jointly responsible for setting editorial policies, managing the production, and disseminating journal content). The University of Münster is responsible for holding the ISSN and hosting the journal content. Neither of the parties owning the journal (Münster Center for Open Science or the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training) can transfer their joint and equal share of the ownership of the journal to a third party. 

In the event of a disagreement between the Münster Center for Open Science and the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training that cannot be resolved by consensus, decisions regarding the journal shall be determined by a simple majority, with each party holding 50% of the voting rights, and, in the event of a tie, an independent mediator mutually agreed upon by both parties shall be appointed.

In the event that one party ceases to exist, permanently withdraws, or is otherwise unable to continue its responsibilities, the remaining party shall assume full ownership and responsibility for the journal.

Ownership of the journal title represents no monetary value.

Editorial Structure

The General Assembly is composed of the following editorial team members: Editors-in-Chief, Senior Editors, Associate Editors, Social Responsibility Champions, Science Communication Champion(s), Reproducibility Manager(s), Editorial Assistant(s), and the Ombudsperson.

The General Assembly is authorized to approve and modify the Constitution, which requires a two third majority of votes from members of the General Assembly. In order to change the journal’s diamond open access status (copyright lies with authors, all articles are free to read and free to publish), unanimous support is necessary.

The Editors are responsible for making strategic decisions after consulting with the General Assembly and report to the General Assembly at least once every two years. The Senior Editors run the Editorial Office, and organize the editorial/publishing workflow. For submitted articles, the Senior or Associate Editors make final decisions on acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts and on technical issues such as copyediting, layout, website, and promotion.

Appointing of Members

Editors-in-Chief, Senior Editors, Associate Editors, Social Responsibility Champions, Science Communication Champions, and the Ombudsperson are appointed by the General Assembly for a term of three years and can be re-elected an unlimited number of times. The ballot is managed by the Ombudsperson. Advisory Board members, Editorial Assistants, and Reproducibility Managers are selected by the Editors-in-Chief and Senior Editors. External Reviewers are selected on a case-by-case basis by the editor handling the manuscript. Moving forward, the Senior Editors and the General Assembly will strive to balance the Editorial Board with respect to scientific areas, geography, ethnicity, and gender.

Resignation

Editorial Board members can resign at any time. In case of lack of cooperation or violation of the constitution or FORRT’s Code of Conduct, Editorial Board members can be discharged by the Senior Editors after consulting with the Ombudsperson at any time (see also Editorial Guidelines). The Senior and Associate Editors can be discharged by the General Assembly, which requires a two third majority of votes.

Tasks and Responsibilities

Founding Editors

  • Responsible for the initial journal concept.
  • Created a considerable portion of the journal materials (e.g., the constitution, the journal workflow).

Editors-in-Chief (EiC)

  • Oversee the overall vision, direction, and operation of the journal. 
  • Final authority on all operational issues.
  • Maintenance of journal website.

Senior Editors

  • Experienced members of the editorial board tasked with providing procedural oversight, facilitating conflict resolution, and safeguarding process integrity. 
  • Mediate procedural disagreements between Associate Editors and Social Responsibility Champions (SRCs).
  • Review appeals related to procedural fairness.
  • Advise the Editors-in-Chief on recurring editorial concerns or policy needs.

Associate Editors (AEs)

  • Responsible for managing the review and editorial decision-making process for submitted manuscripts, including reviewer selection, integrating feedback, and making recommendations to the editorial board.
  • Every AE is responsible for day-to-day management of their editorial workflows, coordinating between teams (e.g., reviewers, authors, reproducibility checkers, social responsibility champions, copyeditors), maintaining transparency and consistency in editorial practices, and overseeing appeals in collaboration with the EiC.
  • Providing advice on improving and developing the journal.

Social Responsibility Champions

  • There are at least two Social Responsibility Champions at R2 of who one can join the handling editor in cases where the Social Responsibility Evaluation is triggered. 
  • Can simultaneously have other roles at the journal such as Associate Editors but only represent one of these roles when handling a given manuscript.
  • The SRCs are from FORRT’s Ethics and Inclusion team.
  • SRCs review and assess the Social Responsibility and Research Integrity Statement provided by authors.
  • Offer recommendations for ensuring that submissions acknowledge their broader societal context, risks, and historical legacies.

Science Communication Champions

  • There can be up to three Science Communication Champions of who one joins the handling editor after they made the decision to accept a manuscript.
  • An SCC provides the first draft for an article’s lay summary that they or the handling editor send to the authors (e.g., alongside the copy-edited manuscript).

Advisory Board Members

Editorial Assistants

  • Selected by EiC.
  • Support the tasks of the EiC, for example running the initial check for submissions via Papercheck, plagiarism check, website maintenance, and copyediting.

Reproducibility Manager (RM) and Reproducibility Checker (RC)

  • Selected by EiC.
  • RM oversees the reproducibility check.
  • RM or RC conduct the reproducibility check, communicate with authors, and publish the reproducibility certificate.

Ombudsperson

  • Must be independent of the journal owners (FORRT & University of Münster).
  • Responsible for mediating between authors and the Editors as well as among editorial board members in case of any disagreement that cannot be resolved otherwise.
  • Appointed by the Senior Editors after consulting with the General Assembly.

External Reviewers

  • Provide feedback on the methodological rigor, replication quality, and empirical soundness of the submissions, contributing to transparent and constructive peer review.
  • Adhere to the journal’s reviewer guidelines.

Ad-hoc Editors

  • Are appointed by senior editors and can be recommended by the General Assembly for submissions for which no other fitting editor is available or for when there is a conflict of interest (e.g., article submitted by a member of the editorial team).
  • Not formally part of the General Assembly.
  • Responsible for managing the review and editorial decision-making process for up to two manuscripts per year, including reviewer selection, integrating feedback, and making recommendations to the editorial board.
  • Responsible for day-to-day management of their editorial workflows, coordinating between teams (e.g., editors, reviewers, authors, reproducibility checkers, social responsibility champions, copyeditors), maintaining transparency and consistency in editorial practices, and overseeing appeals in collaboration with the EiC.

Appeals Process

To ensure fairness and transparency in editorial decisions while maintaining the integrity and authority of our editorial and review processes, R2 establishes the following appeals policy:

Grounds for Appeal

Authors may request an appeal. Appeals must be based on whether the editorial process—including assessments by Associate Editors (AEs), peer reviewers, or the Social Responsibility Committee (SRC)—was conducted fairly and according to the guidelines established in the R2 Constitution. Appeals must not be used as a route for contesting the scientific or social judgments of reviewers, AEs, or SRCs members unless these decisions demonstrably deviate from agreed procedures or are clearly irrational or discriminatory. Examples of valid grounds for appeal include:

  • A procedural violation or omission (e.g., a required round of feedback was skipped).
  • Evidence that a conflict of interest was not disclosed.
  • Evidence that the feedback process lacked transparency or violated R2’s editorial policies.
  • Factual errors made by reviewers or editors that had a major impact on the decision.
  • Bias/unfair treatment.

Example of invalid grounds include:

  • Disagreement with a rejection or revision request that was within the reviewer/AEs/SRC’s remit.

Appeals Body and Decision Authority

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editors-in-Chief and the Senior Editors within 45 days of the rejection or contested editorial outcome. Appeals must clearly state the specific procedural error being alleged. The Editors-in-Chief will:

  • Review all relevant materials, including editorial correspondence, peer reviews, and the manuscript history. 
  • Consult with involved parties (AE, SRC reviewer, etc.) if necessary.
  • Determine whether R2’s editorial policies and procedures were followed fairly.

The decision of the Editors-in-Chief will be communicated in writing to the author(s).

Final Note on Appeals

R2 seeks to model an editorial process grounded in justice, transparency, and collaboration. This appeals mechanism is designed to balance fairness and accountability, while recognizing the importance of protecting all editorial roles from undue influence, epistemic bias, or coercion.

Research Integrity & Social Responsibility

Research integrity and social responsibility are a considerable part of science itself: They include generalizability (What is the context in which it is made?), positionality (Who makes the science?), power structures (Who benefits from it?), and reflexivity (Who can be valued or harmed by it?). R2 values diligence and shares the values of FORRT, where collaboration, community, transparency, ethicality, diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and social justice have been prioritised. R2 also works within the expectations of the FORRT code of conduct (forrt.org/CoC). Embedding these responsibilities and values, we have implemented the Social Responsibility Evaluation to maximise the social value and minimise the likelihood of any social harm caused by the work we publish. At R2, we recognize that all scientific work exists within broader social, historical, and political contexts. While replication, robustness, and methodological soundness remain central and a priority to our editorial mission, we also affirm that social responsibility, epistemic justice, and ethical reflexivity are foundational components of rigorous, robust, and generalizable science. 

As such, R2 requires all submitted manuscripts to include a brief subsection entitled ‘Social Impact & Responsibility’ (SIR). This section should address the broader implications, risks, and potential social impact of the research, particularly when the work touches on historically marginalized communities, controversial topics, or areas with known histories of scientific misuse. This may include explicitly correcting specific (mis)interpretations or erroneous conclusions that could be drawn from the work, critical discussions emphasising factors which may affect generalisability or suitability for application, evidence of engaging with relevant subsections of society, and/or acknowledging implications for stigma, vulnerable populations, and/or society. The role of this section is to recognise the role of this specific piece of research in the context of  societal understanding and change. To support this process, R2 has established a Social Responsibility Committee (SRC). The SRC’s role is:

  • To assess the adequacy of this statement, not the empirical content of the paper (although they can also offer recommendations there). 
  • To offer evidence-informed, field-specific, and context-sensitive feedback.
  • To work collaboratively with authors and editors to strengthen the ethical and social framing of their work.

If a manuscript raises concerns, for example, replicating studies that have been weaponized to justify sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, ableism, or other forms of harm, the SRC, with the support of additional disciplinary experts and lived experience, may recommend that authors:

  • Acknowledge the historical and structural context of the research.
  • Clarify the limitations and risks of misinterpretation or misuse.
  • Engage with the relevant literature documenting the social consequences of such work.

Research Integrity, Scientific Rigor & Justice in Replication Science

We firmly reject the false dichotomy between scientific rigor and social justice. In fact, we maintain that scientific integrity requires critical engagement with the societal implications of research, particularly in fields where the legacy of harm is well documented. By embedding this responsibility into our editorial model, R2 seeks to foster a more inclusive, reflexive, and justice-oriented culture of science. One that is attentive not only to how knowledge is produced, but also to who it serves, who it harms, and who it leaves behind.

Social Responsibility Evaluation

Within our Editorial Board we have at least two members holding the role of Social Responsibility Champions (SRC). While associate editors, that is, the editorial members who handle a specific submission, have expertise on the discussed topics, SRCs have substantial experience in navigating issues of ethics, social justice, or history of science in the respective area. Any of the people involved in an article’s review process can trigger the Social Responsibility Evaluation (SRE) procedure for a given submission (i.e., authors can check a box in the submission portal, reviewers in the review form, but also the associate editor, senior editors, or the editor in chief). In this case, one SRC will be invited to review the ‘Social Impact & Responsibility’ (SIR) subsection in addition to the other invited reviewers. The Associate Editor handling the manuscript cannot act in the SRC role and therefore two independent such roles exist at R2, deemed equally competent. The SRC will review the potential for societal impact and responsibility, potentially inviting reviewers with expertise on the topic to provide feedback that will be sent alongside the peer-review reports to the authors. The decision to ‘Accept’ a manuscript cannot be made until both the SRC and the Associate Editor agree to sign off the manuscript as having responsibly considered the potential societal impact of the work. Up to three rounds of revision may be requested. An opportunity to discuss the issues raised with the SRC will be offered (i.e., a video call, Q&A google doc, etc.). A lack of engagement from the authors' part with the SRC’s (and its reviewers’) concerns for the SIR section, leading to an unbridgeable disagreement after the third revision will result in a Rejection decision.

R2’s Editors and SRCs are equally vested with authority to uphold the quality and integrity of all submitted manuscripts. This includes the right to append an editorial comment alongside any manuscript, providing crucial context, raising pertinent questions, or highlighting areas for further consideration. Furthermore, they possess the discretion to consult external experts, drawing upon a wider pool of knowledge and specialized insights to ensure a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation process, allowing for both internal oversight and external validation, fostering a robust and thorough review mechanism for all publications. In addition, R2’s editors have the right to make retractions, corrections, or take other appropriate actions if an article violates the scope of the SRC or FORRT’s Code of Conduct, even if this was (or not) previously addressed. R2 follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for retractions and corrections. 

Shared Editorial Authority

In cases where the SRC is involved, the SRC and the AE jointly hold equal editorial authority over their respective review domains:

  • The AE oversees the methodological and scientific evaluation.
  • The SRC oversees the Social Responsibility and Research Integrity section.

Neither party may unilaterally override the other. However, failure to engage meaningfully with required revisions in either domain—after up to three rounds of feedback—will result in rejection.

Open Peer Review

Reviews from all submissions will be published in the R2’s Zenodo Community (https://zenodo.org/communities/r2/records) after the final editorial decision to accept or reject the submission. After each round of peer review, the Editors-in-Chief will create a Pubpeer comment on the submission on behalf of the journal. The names of the handling editor, peer reviewers, and reproducibility checker will be published alongside the final article. Peer reviewers can ask to have their names pseudonymized.

Reproducibility Check

Every article that reports results will undergo a reproducibility check after acceptance. The process is overseen by the Reproducibility Manager and is conducted in adherence to the CODECHECK principles.

Acknowledgements and References

This constitution is based on the constitution of the journal Free Neuropathology (https://www.uni-muenster.de/Ejournals/index.php/fnp/Constitution). We thank members of the FORRT community for their feedback and help in creating the constitution.

 

The Inaugural Editorial R2 Team

23 April 2026

 

Cite as: Röseler, L., Wallrich, L., Adler, S., Evans, T. R., Goltermann, J., Gut, U., Korbmacher, M., Oppong Boakye, P., Verheyen, S., Visser, I., & Azevedo, F. (2026). Replication Research Constitution. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17279412