This month, as part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology (RP:CB), we published the results of our first five Replication Studies in the journal eLife. We plan to complete 20+ more replication studies, along with a final meta analysis of all studies conducted for RP:CB. Ultimately, the goal is to investigate the overall rate of reproducibility in a sample of high-impact cancer biology publications and to identify practices that facilitate both reproducibility and an accurate and efficient accumulation of scientific knowledge. The results of the first five of our Replication Studies were mixed; we found that achieving reproducibility is hard. Each of these Replication Studies have elicited varied interpretations about what differs and why; and, ultimately, the results suggest that establishing reproducibility requires iterative experimentation and discovery. All of our work is done transparently; we are openly sharing all of our data, materials, analysis code, and methods upon publication (https://osf.io/e81xl/wiki/home/). Ask us anything about our findings, process, or what we hope to accomplish with this research. We will be back at 2pm EST. Responding are: Timothy Errington, Center for Open Science Alexandria Denis, Center for Open Science Nicole Perfito, Science Exchange Rachel Tsui, Science Exchange Members of the Center for Open Science team, or the Science Exchange team may join us on their personal accounts to answer questions and participate in the discussion as well. Edit: David Mellor, Center for Open Science and Courtney Soderberg, Center for Open Science will be participating on their personal accounts as well. 4:06 pm Edit: This was very enjoyable, thank you to everyone who participated! We’re signing off for now but we’ll be back over the next few hours if more questions and discussions arise