Abstract
Despite the rapid growth of 2D materials research over the past two decades in both academic and industrial settings, there remain big challenges in producing consistent, reproducible results in the field. Subtle variations in methods or materials can lead to drastically different outcomes, undermining reliability and slowing down advances. However, owing to a culture of placing greater value on novelty rather than on reproducibility, little effort is expended in ensuring that results are collected and presented in a way that enables reproducibility. This Expert Recommendation presents two protocols that researchers can follow to improve reproducibility in 2D materials science, as well as practical recommendations on how researchers can engage constructively with funders, publishers and industry to create a stronger basis for reproducibility, transparency and trust in the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).
Errington, T. M., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E. & Nosek, B. A. Reproducibility in cancer biology: challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology. eLife 10, e67995 (2021).
Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454 (2016).
Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0021 (2017).
Baker, M. & Dolgin, E. Cancer reproducibility project releases first results. Nature 541, 269 (2017).
Johansson, P. et al. Ten ways to fool the masses when presenting battery research. Batteries Supercaps 4, 1785–1788 (2021).
Boggild, P. Research on scalable graphene faces a reproducibility gap. Nat. Commun. 14, 1126 (2023).
Lanza, M., Smets, Q., Huyghebaert, C. & Li, L. J. Yield, variability, reliability, and stability of two-dimensional materials based solid-state electronic devices. Nat. Commun. 11, 5689 (2020).
Kauling, A. P. et al. The worldwide graphene flake production. Adv. Mater. 30, 1803784 (2018).
Chatterjee, S., Abadie, T., Wang, M. H., Matar, O. K. & Ruoff, R. S. Repeatability and reproducibility in the chemical vapor deposition of 2D films: a physics-driven exploration of the reactor black box. Chem. Mater. 36, 1290–1298 (2024).
Amontree, J. et al. Reproducible graphene synthesis by oxygen-free chemical vapour deposition. Nature 630, 636–642 (2024).
Guo, W., Wu, B., Wang, S. & Liu, Y. Q. Controlling fundamental fluctuations for reproducible growth of large single-crystal graphene. ACS Nano 12, 1778–1784 (2018).
Turner, P. et al. International interlaboratory comparison of Raman spectroscopic analysis of CVD-grown graphene. 2D Mater. 9, 035010 (2022).
Mackenzie, D. M. A. et al. Quality assessment of terahertz time-domain spectroscopy transmission and reflection modes for graphene conductivity mapping. Opt. Express 26, 9220–9229 (2018).
Fan, Y. et al. Recent advances in growth of large-sized 2D single crystals on Cu substrates. Adv. Mater. 33, e2003956 (2021).
Wittmann, S. et al. Assessment of wafer-level transfer techniques of graphene with respect to semiconductor industry requirements. Adv. Mater. Technol. 8, 2201587 (2023).
Cheng, Z. H. et al. How to report and benchmark emerging field-effect transistors. Nat. Electron. 5, 416–423 (2022).
Cheng, Z. H. et al. How to report and benchmark emerging field-effect transistors. Nat. Electron. 5, 620–620 (2022).
McClellan, C. J. et al. 2D Device Trends (Stanford, accessed 17 April 2025); http://2d.stanford.edu/2D_Trends.html.
Díez-Mérida, J. et al. High-yield fabrication of bubble-free magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene devices with high twist angle homogeneity. Newton 1, 100007 (2025).
Canto, B. et al. Multi-project wafer runs for electronic graphene devices in the European 2D-experimental pilot line project. Nat. Commun. 16, 1417 (2025).
Nosek, B. et al. Reproducibility and transparency: what’s going on and how can we help. Nat. Commun. 16, 1082 (2025).
Munafò, M. Raising research quality will require collective action. Nature 576, 183–183 (2019).
Kent, B. A. et al. Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice. PLoS Biol. 20, e3001680 (2022).
Higginson, A. D. & Munafò, M. R. Current incentives for scientists lead to underpowered studies with erroneous conclusions. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000995 (2016).
Gammelgaard, L., Whelan, P. R., Booth, T. J. & Boggild, P. Long-term stability and tree-ring oxidation of WSe2 using phase-contrast AFM. Nanoscale 13, 19238–19246 (2021).
Johann, D., Neufeld, J., Thomas, K., Rathmann, J. & Rauhut, H. The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies. Res. Eval. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae011 (2024).
Smith, A. Who discovered the magnetocaloric effect? Eur. Phys. J. H. 38, 507–517 (2013).
Lau, C. N., Bockrath, M. W., Mak, K. F. & Zhang, F. Reproducibility in the fabrication and physics of moire materials. Nature 602, 41–50 (2022).
Kapfer, M. et al. Programming twist angle and strain profiles in 2D materials. Science 381, 677–681 (2023).
Knoepfler, P. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet. 31, 221–223 (2015).
Dance, A. Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off. Nature 614, 581–583 (2023).
Woolston, C. Workplace habits: full-time is full enough. Nature 546, 175–177 (2017).
Promoting reproducibility with registered reports. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0034 (2017).
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Clifford, C. A. et al. The importance of international standards for the graphene community. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 233–235 (2021).
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity (accessed 6 June 2025). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity_horizon_en.pdf (accessed 6 June 2025).
Go forth and replicate! Nature 536, 373 (2016).
Begley, C. G., Buchan, A. M. & Dirnagl, U. Robust research institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature 525, 25–27 (2015).
Shiffrin, R. M., Börner, K. & Stigler, S. M. Scientific progress despite irreproducibility: a seeming paradox. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2632–2639 (2018).
Yuan, Y. et al. On the quality of commercial chemical vapour deposited hexagonal boron nitride. Nat. Commun. 15, 4518 (2024).
Pizzocchero, F. et al. The hot pick-up technique for batch assembly of van der Waals heterostructures. Nat. Commun. 7, 11894 (2016).
Whelan, P. R. et al. Electrical homogeneity mapping of epitaxial graphene on silicon carbide. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 31641–31647 (2018).
Consort 2010. Lancet 375, 1136 (2010).
von Elm, E. et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370, 1453–1457 (2007).
Acknowledgements
P.B. acknowledges financial support from BIOMAG — Novo Nordisk Foundation Challenge Programme (grant no. NNF21OC0066526) and DFF METATUNE (grant no. 1032-00496B). N.L. gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Postdoc Mobility P500PT_211105) and the Villum Foundation (Villum Experiment 50355). B.S.J. acknowledges financial support from BioNWire — Novo Nordisk Foundation Interdisciplinary Synergy Project (grant no. NNF23OC0084494). K.D. acknowledges financial support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation CO2 Research Center (grant no. NNF21SA0072700). A.J.P. acknowledges funding from the National Measurement System (NMS) of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), UK (Project no. 127931). The authors acknowledge input and discussions with A. Wotherspoon, I. Asselberghs, R. Taboryski, S. Arpiainen and C. Huyghebaert.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
P.B. conceived the study and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. B.S.J., O.B. and A.S. wrote the STEP examples. All authors have read and provided input to the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The opinions expressed in this paper reflect the views of the individual authors and should not be considered as statements of the official policy of their institutions.
Peer review
Peer-review information
Nature Reviews Physics thanks Mario Lanza, Xiaomeng Liu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Bøggild, P., Booth, T.J., Jessen, B.S. et al. Protocols and tools to enable reproducibility in 2D materials research. Nat Rev Phys 7, 728–738 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-025-00875-9
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-025-00875-9
