Constitution

Please note that this is a preliminary version of the R2 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 by as close or conceptual replications)
  • reproduction 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 empirical articles above (e.g., aggregating the state of replicability across a field)

Empirical papers are selected based on their 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, novelty, can be part of a contribution’s discussion but must not be given as reasons for acceptance or rejections of submitted empirical manuscripts. R2 accepts registered reports for studies where new data is collected and offers results-blind review for reproduction studies. 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

These articles should be of interest to at least two major disciplines represented at R2. 

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 overtakes 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 are 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 checks, 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 into 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 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 to cast the deciding vote.

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, Reproducibility Managers, Editorial Assistants, 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 the case of the journal’s diamond open access status (copyright lies with authors, all articles are free to read and free to publish), being changed, unanimous support is necessary.

The Editors are responsible for making strategic decisions after consulting with the General AssemblyEditorial Boards and regularly report to the General AssemblyEditorial Boards and the Ombudsperson. The Senior Editors appoint the other members of the General AssemblyEditorial Boards, run the Editorial Office, and organize the editorial/publishing workflow. For submitted articles, tThe 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. The Senior Editors are elected and appointed for a term of five years by the members of the General AssemblyEditorial Boards. The ballot is managed by the Ombudsperson. The Senior and Associate Editors can resign at any time provided the resignation is announced three months in advance. The Senior and Associate Editors can be discharged by the General Assembly,Editorial Boards which requires a two third majority of votes.

 

Appointing of Members

Editors-in-Chief, Senior Editors, Associate Editors, Social Responsibility 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. 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. 

 

Resignation

Editorial Board members can resign at any time. Selection for Associate Editor specifically takes into account the candidate's excellent standing with respect to commitment and previous editorial service rather than relation with the Editors or famousness. In case of missing cooperation, Editorial Board members can be uninvited by the Senior Editors after consulting with the Ombudsperson at any time (see also Editorial Guidelines). The Editors will strive to balance the Editorial Boards with respect to scientific areas, geography and gender.

 

Tasks and Responsibilities

Editors-in-Chief (EiC)

  • Oversee the overall vision, direction, and operation of the journal. 
  • Final authority on all procedural appeals and constitutional matters.
  • Maintenance of journal website

 

Founding Editors

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

 

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 Editor-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 website.

 

Social Responsibility Champions

  • At least two Social Responsibility Champions who join the handling editor in cases a Social Responsibility Evaluation is necessary. 
  • 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.

 

Advisory Board Members

 

Editorial Assistants

  • Selected by EiC.
  • Supports 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

  • Responsible for mediating between authors and the Editors as well as between Editorial Board members and the Editors in case of any disagreement that cannot be resolved otherwise.
  • Appointed by the Editors after consulting with the Editorial Board.

 

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

  • 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., reviewers, authors, reproducibility checkers, social responsibility champions, copyeditors), maintaining transparency and consistency in editorial practices, and overseeing appeals in collaboration with the EiC.
  • 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).

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:

1. Grounds for Appeal

Authors may request an appeall only on procedural grounds. 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.

2. Appeals Body and Decision Authority

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-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 Editor-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 Editor-in-Chief is final and will be communicated in writing to the author(s).

3. 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—may result in rejection.

4. 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.

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.

Research Integrity & Social Responsibility

 

Research integrity and social responsibility as 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 for FORRT, where the values of 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 critical 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.

This engagement is not optional, and the review process includes up to three rounds of structured revision in response to SRC feedback. Should the authors fail to engage meaningfully with the provided recommendations after three rounds, the SRC may recommend rejection of the manuscript based solely on the Social Responsibility section.

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. The Associate Editor handling the manuscript cannot act in the SRC role and therefore two independent such roles exist at R2, deemed equality 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 can result in a Rejection decision.

 

R2’s Editors and SRCs have the right to provide an editorial comment alongside manuscripts and to consult external experts as needed.

 

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—may result in rejection.

 

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

 

19 September 2025