RRRP (CASRAI)
Reproducibility & Research Rigour Certification — Professional
What you earn
The credential itself
Pass the examination and CASRAI issues this certificate and the post-nominal RRRP (CASRAI), signed by the Programme Director and verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.
CASRAI Certification
Certificate of Professional Competence
This is to certify that
Dr. Amelia R. Hartley
has completed the prescribed programme of study and passed the examination in
Reproducibility & Research Rigour — Professional
and is admitted to the designationRRRP (CASRAI)
Certifications
RRRP (CASRAI) — Reproducibility & Research Rigour, Professional
CASRAI·Issued Mar 2026·Credential ID CASRAI-RRR-2026-HZK0UA
casrai.org/verify/CASRAI-RRR-2026-HZK0UA
Every certificate is issued under the signature of Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director of CASRAI Certification, who sets the syllabus, blueprint and pass mark for this credential.
It certifies that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published on this page — and anyone can confirm it from the verification code, without an account and without contacting us.
About this credential
What it covers
Body of knowledge
Exam blueprint
The exam is assembled to these weights on every attempt. They are published before purchase because a blueprint you cannot see is not a blueprint.
| Domain | Proportion of exam | Weight | Items |
|---|---|---|---|
| The reproducibility problem: evidence, definitions and diagnosis1 | 10%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Questionable research practices and the incentive environment2 | 11%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Design rigour3 | 15%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Statistical rigour4 | 17%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Authentication of key resources and measurement integrity5 | 11%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Preregistration, Registered Reports and transparency practice6 | 13%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Reporting guidelines and availability statements7 | 12%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Computational reproducibility and institutional rigour programmes8 | 11%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Total | 100% | 6 |
Item counts are approximate. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the weights above, so the exact number of items per domain varies between attempts.
Syllabus
12 modules, 12 lessons
Every lesson and every learning outcome is listed. The lesson bodies open on enrolment; nothing else about the course is withheld.
12 modules · 12 lessons
Lesson material opens once you are enrolled. The full syllabus and every learning outcome are shown here so you can judge the coverage before you pay.
Module 1
P1
1 lesson
- Locked.The reproducibility problem: evidence, definitions and critiqueLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [R] State the 2019 National Academies distinction between reproducibility and replicability, and identify where the report places generalisability.
- [A] Classify a described empirical exercise as a reproduction, a replication or a test of generalisability, and state what each licenses.
- [A] Detect when an author is using the opposite terminological convention and establish which before interpreting their claim.
- [An] Summarise what the major replication projects found, with their actual numbers and their own stated limitations.
- [An] Argue the strongest methodological case against the crisis framing.
- [An] Diagnose which category of failure a described case of non-replication most plausibly belongs to.
Module 2
P2
1 lesson
- Locked.Questionable research practices and the incentive environmentLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [A] Identify each named QRP from a description of what a researcher did.
- [An] Explain the mechanism by which each inflates false positives or effect sizes, in terms a non-statistician can follow.
- [An] Place a described behaviour correctly on the QRP/misconduct boundary, including where the boundary is genuinely ambiguous.
- [An] Identify the incentive that makes a given QRP adaptive.
- [C] Specify the practice change that would remove a given QRP from a laboratory's workflow.
Module 3
P3
1 lesson
- Locked.Design rigour I: randomisation, blinding and controlsLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [An] Evaluate whether a described design can answer the question posed, and name the specific threat that would defeat it.
- [A] Specify randomisation and allocation concealment appropriate to a study.
- [An] Identify where a described allocation procedure fails, and why.
- [A] Specify blinding appropriate to a study, including where blinding is impossible and what compensates.
- [An] Evaluate whether a control isolates the variable of interest.
Module 4
P4
1 lesson
- Locked.Design rigour II: replicate structure, batch effects and confoundingLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [An] Determine the correct unit of analysis for a described experiment and identify pseudoreplication.
- [A] Distinguish biological from technical replicates and state the consequence of confusing them.
- [An] Identify batch and processing confounds in a described workflow.
- [C] Specify the design change that removes an identified confound.
- [An] Represent the assumed causal structure of a study as a diagram and identify a collider.
- [A] Assess whether relevant biological variables have been considered.
Module 5
P5
1 lesson
- Locked.Statistical rigour I: power, effect size and sample-size justificationLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [An] Evaluate a sample-size justification and identify where it is circular, absent, or based on an inflated estimate.
- [An] Explain the winner's curse and its consequence for replication planning.
- [C] Produce a defensible sample-size justification using a smallest effect size of interest.
- [A] Distinguish a statistically significant result from a scientifically meaningful one.
- [An] Interpret an effect size and a confidence interval, and correct a described misinterpretation.
Module 6
P6
1 lesson
- Locked.Statistical rigour II: inference, multiplicity and the p-value debateLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [A] Interpret a p-value correctly and correct a described misinterpretation.
- [An] Identify multiplicity in a described analysis and specify proportionate handling.
- [An] Determine whether an absence of evidence has been presented as evidence of absence, and specify the correct alternative.
- [A] Distinguish exploratory from confirmatory analysis on the basis of pre-specification.
- [An] Identify misuse of Cronbach's alpha and specify what should have been reported.
Module 7
P7
1 lesson
- Locked.Authentication of key resources and measurement integrityLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [A] Identify which resources in a described study are "key" and require authentication.
- [A] Specify the authentication procedure appropriate to a resource type.
- [An] Detect an unauthenticated or misidentified resource from a methods section.
- [A] Assign and interpret RRIDs.
- [An] Evaluate whether an instrument or assay has been validated for the use it is being put to.
- [C] Specify a QC regime for a shared resource.
Module 8
P8
1 lesson
- Locked.Preregistration and Registered ReportsLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [C] Write an analysis plan specific enough to constrain the analysis.
- [An] Distinguish a preregistered confirmatory analysis from a deviation, and specify how a deviation must be reported.
- [An] Evaluate the limits of preregistration and identify what it does not fix.
- [A] Advise on whether a Registered Report is the appropriate vehicle for a given study.
Module 9
P9
1 lesson
- Locked.Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR NetworkLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [A] Select the correct reporting guideline for a given study design.
- [An] Appraise a manuscript or protocol against the relevant guideline and identify the material omissions.
- [An] Distinguish a reporting requirement from a design requirement.
- [C] Advise a journal or an institution on a reporting-guideline policy.
Module 10
P10
1 lesson
- Locked.Availability statements and transparency policyLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [An] Audit a set of data and code availability statements and quantify how many are actionable.
- [C] Write availability statements that would enable a reader to obtain the material.
- [A] Apply the TOP framework to a journal or institutional policy question.
- [An] Distinguish a legitimate access restriction from unwillingness disguised as one.
Module 11
P11
1 lesson
- Locked.Computational reproducibilityLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [An] Determine whether a described pipeline would reproduce, and identify the specific reason it would not.
- [A] Specify the minimum artefacts a reproducible analysis must ship.
- [An] Distinguish "the code runs" from "the result reproduces", and explain why the former is the more dangerous outcome.
- [A] Specify environment capture, seeding and provenance proportionate to an analysis.
Module 12
P12
1 lesson
- Locked.Institutional rigour programmes, funders and the policy layerLocked
On completion you will be able to
- [C] Design an institutional programme to improve rigour, and justify the intervention chosen.
- [An] Assess institutional incentives and identify the change that would matter.
- [An] Determine, for a given researcher, through which channel rigour expectations actually reach them.
- [An] Evaluate a policy claim in this area for currency and identify what must be re-verified.
Assessment
How the exam works
The exam is closed-book and multiple choice. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the domain weights above, so no two attempts are the same paper and no answer key circulates. The pass mark is 70% and is fixed — there is no curve, no quota and no adjustment by cohort.
Scoring is immediate. You are shown your overall result and, for every item, the option you chose, the correct option and the reasoning behind it — whether you passed or not. A failed attempt may be retaken after 90 days. The wait exists so a retake is a second attempt at the material rather than a second attempt at remembering the paper.
Forms are assembled to the blueprint above or not at all: where a domain cannot yet be sampled to that standard, the exam declines to start rather than issue an unbalanced paper. Your material and progress are never affected, and there is no time limit on when you sit.
Passing candidates are issued a certificate with a verification code. Anyone can check that code on our public verification page without an account and without contacting us.
Certifying authority
Signed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD
CASRAI’s certification programme is academically and medically directed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director, who sets the syllabus and blueprint for this credential and signs every certificate issued under it.
CASRAI has maintained the terminology and reporting standards of research administration for over a decade. It assumed leadership of the CRediT contributor-roles taxonomy in 2014 and carried it through to adoption as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, now in use by publishers, funders and institutions worldwide. This examination is drawn from that body of work.
What the credential certifies: that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published above — verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.
