# The Shift Toward Open and Reproducible AI Research

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16974 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16974/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18864/) (2025)
- [Sources of Irreproducibility in Machine Learning: A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.07610/) (2022)
- [The Model Openness Framework: Promoting Completeness and Openness for Reproducibility, Transparency, and Usability in Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13784/) (2024)
- [AI Copilots for Reproducibility in Science: A Case Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20130/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [RECLAIM: Can Agents Reproduce the Claims of Machine Learning Papers?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.28850/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The reproducibility crisis has directed the AI research community toward improving documentation practices. Several studies have identified methodological issues, and in response, the most impactful venues in the field have introduced reproducibility checklists. We seek to understand whether documentation practices have changed over time by assessing all published papers at five leading AI conferences over the past decade. Seven reproducibility variables were identified, quality-assured and used to analyse 56 800 publications. Our analysis reveals that in the period 2014 to 2024, documentation practices have improved; papers sharing both code and data increased nearly sixfold, from 11% to 64% Building on empirical reproducibility rates from a prior study, we estimate - inferred from documentation practices, not direct testing - that reproducibility increased from 28% in 2014 to 64% in 2024. Improvements in documentation practices predate the introduction of reproducibility checklists, suggesting these changes reflect a broader movement toward open science rather than a direct response to formal requirements.