4.5 Article

Learning from reproducing computational results: introducing three principles and the Reproduction Package

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0069

Keywords

reproducibility; software testing; code packaging; verification; open code; open data

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation [OAC-1839010, CNS-1646305]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses efforts to reproduce computational results for seven published articles and outlines three principles to guide reproducible computational research: transparency, ease of (re-)executability, and determinism. Additionally, 12 specific guidelines are provided for implementing these principles in practice.
We carry out efforts to reproduce computational results for seven published articles and identify barriers to computational reproducibility. We then derive three principles to guide the practice and dissemination of reproducible computational research: (i) Provide transparency regarding how computational results are produced; (ii) When writing and releasing research software, aim for ease of (re-)executability; (iii) Make any code upon which the results rely as deterministic as possible. We then exemplify these three principles with 12 specific guidelines for their implementation in practice. We illustrate the three principles of reproducible research with a series of vignettes from our experimental reproducibility work. We define a novel Reproduction Package, a formalism that specifies a structured way to share computational research artifacts that implements the guidelines generated from our reproduction efforts to allow others to build, reproduce and extend computational science. We make our reproduction efforts in this paper publicly available as exemplar Reproduction Packages. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reliability and reproducibility in computational science: implementing verification, validation and uncertainty quantification in silico'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available