3 ms·

This article complains that it takes too much time to make your research reproducible. I would instead suggest that if your research is not reproducible it is i

• zby 6y ago
  Oh - come on - it starts with: "It's no secret that biomedical research is requiring more and more computational analyses these days, and with that has come some welcome discussion of how to make those analyses reproducible. On some level, I guess it's a no-brainer: if it's not reproducible, it's not science, right? And on a practical level, I think there are a lot of good things about making your analysis reproducible," It does not say making research reproducible is not worth it - it just wants one exception - about the figure layout (fonts, colors, etc) and then it argues against using version control which is orthogonal. I don't agree with him that version control is too complicated - but I agree that version control is not really needed for reproducibility.
• robocat 6y ago
  From the top of the article: “(vaguely ranked starting with what I consider most important): 1. Umm, that it’s reproducible. 2. ...”