3 ms·
Sorry but its 2016, publishing a paper is not enough. Alan kay of all should now we need more , we need: The three/four pillars of reproducible research Often
by NotUsingLinux 10y ago
Sorry but its 2016, publishing a paper is not enough. Alan kay of all should now we need more , we need:
The three/four pillars of reproducible research
Often in the discussions around open and reproducible science we focus three main types of research products
1. the paper: the traditional narrative document, often 2. the data: increasingly appreciated as a first-class citizen of scientific record with data repositories providing DOIs
3. the code: recognized as a research product, but the last to be integrated into literature system and given DOI
4. the environment: a critical and under-appreciated ingredient for computational reproducibility
THAT should be the minimum for all science projects IMHO. What do you think?
- e12e 10y agoI'd love to see full sources and build system that allowed everyone to play with Frank. I was sure I'd made a comment to that effect somewhere, but I can't find it now, perhaps it was eaten by my outdated smart phone. On the other hand, I believe the paper(s) might very well be more important: exploring the ideas. I think it's a difference between a research project in computer science, and an engineering project. The first lambda calculus was just a project - they thought they'd need years to get the thing running. And then someone just coded up eval() in machine-code and they were bootstrapped. I to want the implementation of eval(), but I'm not unhappy that they've shared their ideas.
- e12e 10y agoOh, yeah there it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11686096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11686096