Empirical observations of how labs conduct research indicate that the adoption rate of open practices for transparent, reproducible, and collaborative science remains in its infancy. This is at odds with the overwhelming evidence for the necessity of these practices and their benefits for individual researchers, scientific progress, and society in general. To date, information required for implementing open science practices throughout the different steps of a research project is scattered among many different sources. Even experienced researchers in the topic find it hard to navigate the ecosystem of tools and to make sustainable choices. Here, we provide an integrated overview of community-developed resources that can support collaborative, open, reproducible, replicable, robust and generalizable neuroimaging throughout the entire research cycle from inception to publication and across different neuroimaging modalities. We review tools and practices supporting study inception and planning, data acquisition, research data management, data processing and analysis, and research dissemination. An online version of this resource can be found at https://oreoni.github.io. We believe it will prove helpful for researchers and institutions to make a successful and sustainable move towards open and reproducible science and to eventually take an active role in its future development.

Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.

Drug treatments for pain often do not outperform placebo, and a better understanding of placebo mechanisms is needed to improve treatment development and clinical practice. In a large-scale fMRI study (N = 392) with pre-registered analyses, we tested whether placebo analgesic treatment modulates nociceptive processes, and whether its effects generalize from conditioned to unconditioned pain modalities. Placebo treatment caused robust analgesia in conditioned thermal pain that generalized to unconditioned mechanical pain. However, placebo did not decrease pain-related fMRI activity in brain measures linked to nociceptive pain, including the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS) and spinothalamic pathway regions, with strong support for null effects in Bayes Factor analyses. In addition, surprisingly, placebo increased activity in some spinothalamic regions for unconditioned mechanical pain. In contrast, placebo reduced activity in a neuromarker associated with higher-level contributions to pain, the Stimulus Intensity Independent Pain Signature (SIIPS), and affected activity in brain regions related to motivation and value, in both pain modalities. Individual differences in behavioral analgesia were correlated with neural changes in both modalities. Our results indicate that cognitive and affective processes primarily drive placebo analgesia, and show the potential of neuromarkers for separating treatment influences on nociception from influences on evaluative processes.

There is an ongoing debate about the replicability of neuroimaging research. It was suggested that one of the main reasons for the high rate of false positive results is the many degrees of freedom researchers have during data analysis. In the Neuroimaging Analysis Replication and Prediction Study (NARPS), we aim to provide the first scientific evidence on the variability of results across analysis teams in neuroscience. We collected fMRI data from 108 participants during two versions of the mixed gambles task, which is often used to study decision-making under risk. For each participant, the dataset includes an anatomical (T1 weighted) scan and fMRI as well as behavioral data from four runs of the task. The dataset is shared through OpenNeuro and is formatted according to the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) standard. Data pre-processed with fMRIprep and quality control reports are also publicly shared. This dataset can be used to study decision-making under risk and to test replicability and interpretability of previous results in the field.