Recently Added

Content type
Original research
Reanalyses - Robustness
Reanalyses - Meta-analyses
Registered Report format
Preregistered design + analysis
Public study materials
Public data
Public code
Reporting standard compliance


Science requires transparency. However, no platform currently exists to look up the transparency of scientific articles. Curate Science aims to solve this problem by allowing researchers to label and link the transparency and replication of their research. Why would researchers want to label and link the transparency of their research?

Because it will selfishly benefit them in several ways:
  1. Will increase the impact, value, and discoverability of their research:
    • Increase the number of citations, downloads, and views of their articles (postprints and preprints)
    • Increase the number of downloads and views of their publicly available study materials, data, and code
  2. Is easiest and best way to organize their publications:
    • Fastest way to find article full-text and associated content (e.g., study materials, data, code, preregistered protocol)
    • Fastest way to share an article and refer to specific figures and/or materials, data, or code in emails or on social media (for themselves and others, the latter which will further boost reuse and citation counts)
  3. Will give them a competitive edge in job applications, job promotions, and grant applications:
    • Most compelling way to communicate one's full commitment to open science
  4. Will maximize their research integrity and accountability to research funders and to the public

Researchers should also want to do this because it will benefit the research community and students:
  1. Will help the community reuse and reanalyze empirical findings (e.g., in meta-analyses), accelerating scientific progress
  2. Will make it substantially easier for the community to replicate and extend published findings, also accelerating progress
  3. Will yield rich metadata resources for teaching and meta-science research on transparency, reproducibility, and replication

For a full list of benefits of labeling transparency, see our white paper (Table 1). The paper also outlines the theoretical principles that guide the design and implementation of our platform.

Featured Author Pages


Main Team

Etienne P. LeBel
KU Leuven
Founder & Lead

Wolf Vanpaemel
KU Leuven
Conceptual/Funding Advisor

Mike Morrison
Michigan State University
Technical Advisor

Touko Kuusi
University of Helsinki
Volunteer Curator

Alex Kyllo
Software Developer
Advisory Board (as of June 2017)

Susann Fiedler
Max Planck Institute - Bonn

Anna van't Veer
Leiden University

Julia Rohrer
Max Planck Institute - Berlin

Michèle Nuijten
Tilburg University

Dorothy Bishop
University of Oxford

Brent Roberts
University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

Hal Pashler
University of California - San Diego

Daniel Simons
University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

Alex Holcombe
University of Sydney

E-J Wagenmakers
University of Amsterdam

Katie Corker
Grand Valley State University

Simine Vazire
University of California – Davis

Richard Lucas
Michigan State University

Marco Perugini
University of Milan-Bicocca

Lorne Campbell
University of Western Ontario

Eric Eich
University of British Columbia

Mark Brandt
Tilburg University

Frequently Asked Questions


What was the original inspiration for Curate Science?

The idea behind Curate Science originated in 2014 amidst the bustling early days of the "open science movement" in psychology. Several new transparency and replication initiatives were emerging. The idea was to try to organize all this information in one place, creating a kind of public commons for the research community (or "science-commons", which was our original name).

Who started Curate Science?

Curate Science was started by 2 academic researchers (Etienne LeBel and Christian Battista) and 2 volunteer Silicon Valley software developers.

Present/Current Focus

What is our current focus?

We are about to release a redesigned platform to allow authors to curate the transparency and replication of their research. This will allow them to label and link (1) the transparency of their articles (with respect to 5 fundamental transparency categories, see above) and (2) replications and reanalyses of previously reported findings.

How is Curate Science unique from other open science/publishing platforms?

We are the only platform that allows the curation of transparency and replication information of unpublished and published articles. We are strictly focused on curation, hence, we do not host original content or data.

Who is currently working on Curate Science?

Etienne LeBel is the founder and current lead, Wolf Vanpaemel contributes conceptually, and Touko Kuusi is a volunteer curator. Randy McCarthy, Brian Earp, and Malte Elson (and Vanpaemel) were substantial contributors to the unified framework white paper that guides the design and development of the platform (recently published at Advanced in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (LeBel, McCarthy, Earp, Elson, & Vanpaemel, 2018). Finally, our 17-person advisory board, composed of trailblazers in the transparency and replication movement, provide regular feedback regarding grant proposal applications and Curate Science activities.

Who is funding Curate Science?

We are currently funded by a 2-year grant from the European Commission (Marie-Curie grant) with a mandate to scale up the platform to allow curation at a larger scale.


Is Curate Science a "central authority" that provide "official stamps of approval" of trustworthy research?

No. Our goal is to curate the transparency of empirical research as accurately and impartially as possible, rather than adjucating the quality of research directly. This then allows the community of researchers to more effectively scrutinize published findings in nuanced ways.

A lot is at stake when curating replication results. How will Curate Science ensure curation is done in ways that are fair to original authors?

We have specifically designed the platform and user interface to be as fair and generous as possible to original authors. For instance, we allow the linking of commentary articles by original authors of replication papers.

Curate Science seems to have good intentions, but isn't it going to "stigmatize" older research conducted according to different standards?

Kind of, but no. It is true that today's (much needed) higher transparency standards in some ways make older research seem less impressive. However, Curate Science is committed to rewarding positive scientific behaviors rather than punishing questionable behaviors. Indeed, we make it easy to get the most credit possible for conducting and reporting one's research only a little bit more transparently. That is, as transparent as you currently have time for and/or are comfortable with. For example, if you're uncomfortable publicly posting your data for an article, you could still earn credit by publicly posting your code and linking to it on Curate Science.

Future directions/Road Map

I want to add my transparently reported articles. When will I be able to do so?

Based on curating over 1,200 replications of 200+ effects reported in hundreds of articles in the social and life sciences, we have recently redesigned our platform so that it can accommodate a wider array of different kinds of studies and articles. It is currently being implemented and will be ready for early testing by a small group of researchers (spring 2019). Sign up to receive our newsletter to get regular updates on our progress.

What's the story behind Curate Science's new snail logo?

Scientific research must be done carefully. Solid scientific facts accumulate slowly and gradually (as does scientific curation). Snails are slow but they reliably get to where they need to go (Slowly but surely, mostly slowly). Snails, consequently, are a fitting symbol to convey the slow, careful, and gradual nature of science. Snails are also cute.


Please sign up below to receive the Curate Science Newsletter to be notifed about news and updates.
See past announcements.