Table 2. Summary of group discussion.

Group	Question	Challenges 1
Subgroup 1: improving education & training in rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT)	1. Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistical practice?	1. It would be difficult to isolate and to evaluate the effects of changes to existing curricula.
		2. Proximal measures related to technical skills might not translate into improved research practices.
	2. Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?	1. Writing is an abstract science, which would make measuring outcomes challenging.
		2. There are currently limited existing graduate level curricula that pertain exclusively to writing.
	3. Does modality affect the efficacy of RRT-related education?	1. Feasibility concerns including, cost, time, and other additional resources needed to facilitate an intervention.
		2. Examining heterogeneity requires large and diverse populations, and is practically difficult.
Subgroup 2: reducing statistical errors and increasing analytic transparency	4. Can automation help identify errors more efficiently?	1. Automation may be technically possible for only certain types of errors.
		2. New programs intended to automate error correction require a certain level of computer programming expertise.
	5. What is the prevalence and impact of errors?	1. It would be difficult to generalize the prevalence of errors, because many common errors have field-specific names.
		2. Assessing the impact of errors is largely subjective, unless strict guidelines are agreed upon and adopted.
	6. Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?	1. It would be difficult to determine if workflows are entirely responsible for reduced error and improved research practice.
		2. It may be challenging to identify generalizable workflows that logically function across disciplines.
	7. How do we encourage post-publication error correction?	1. It would be difficult to implement standard post-publication error correction guidelines that function effectively across disciplines.
		2. There is a hesitancy to embrace error correction as a normal component of the editorial process.
Subgroup 3: looking outward: increasing truthfulness and accuracy of research communications	8. How does 'spin' in research communication affect stakeholders' understanding and use of research evidence?	1. The effects of spin in controlled research settings might not generalize to real-world decisions.
		2. Reviewing and categorizing text is both subjective and time consuming.
	9. Do tools to aid writing research reports increase the comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?	1. Although tools could be developed for testing, implementation challenges could mitigate their effectiveness in practice.
		2. Previous guidelines have had minimal impact on reporting quality.
	10. Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting?	1. There are few model interventions to form self-identity.
		2. There may be limited opportunities and enthusiasm to integrate values-based education in classes that focus on technical skills.

¹We present here only two of the most salient challenges.