**Joining forces to promote research transparency** As stated in the "Manifesto for Reproducible Science," the overarching goal of the research transparency movement is to improve "the reliability and efficiency of scientific research" and "increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery" (Munafò et al, 2017). Given the critical role that curated and shared data plays in conducting reproducible science, not to mention the training and advocacy that data professionals provide, it is clear that there is significant common ground shared by these two communities. Panelists will discuss research transparency and reproducibility by highlighting timely projects, defining the main terms (e.g., replicability, reproducibility), and sharing tools (e.g., Open Science Framework, Project Tier) that could assist in scholar workflow. Panelists represent a variety of disciplines and experience with reproducibility and will share ideas on how the various communities can best work together. Source: Marcus R. Munafò et al. "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 1. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 **Panelists** Harrison Dekker University of Rhode Island (representing Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences), United States Amy Riegelman of University of Minnesota, United States Norm Medeiros of Haverford College (representing Project TIER), United States Limor Peer of Institution for Social and Policy Studies (ISPS), Yale University (representing Curating for Reproducibility), United States Florio Arguillas of CISER, Cornell University, United States **I. Session introduction by Florio** Introduces self Summary of reproducibility and replicability **II. Panelist Introductions / Presentations** (10 min. introduction / presentation per panelist) Panelists are expected to share the following (and more!): What is your role, and how are the existing services at your institution supporting reproducibility? If possible, speak specifically about sharing and curating data. **III. Questions for panelists** Libraries and other entities have been actively involved in training and advocating for data sharing and data management principles broadly. Please share examples from your institutions regarding effective teaching and learning about data management. What were some of the challenges that you personally encountered regarding the support of reproducible research. -OR- In your work, what are some barriers to success in terms of supporting reproducible research? What are some tools and resources that you'd recommend as a starting point for understanding the reproducibility movement? What do you recommend for professional development opportunities to learn more about reproducibility (e.g., discipline specific or discipline agnostic)? What have you found successful or challenging around building community regarding reproducibility? How do you think the scholarly communication ecosystem is or has evolved to better support reproducible research (e.g., registered reports, preregistration, trend of evidence synthesis in health sciences and social sciences)? What specific challenges have you observed in your work? For example, we are not always disciplinary experts, but we do have data management expertise. How is your work integrated into disciplinary scholarship? **IV. Audience Q&A**