3 ms·
> Re-using source code saves time, but I would argue not being able to shouldn't threaten reproducibility. More often than not it‘s not clear from a paper what
by davnn 6y ago
> Re-using source code saves time, but I would argue not being able to shouldn't threaten reproducibility.
More often than not it‘s not clear from a paper what exactly the authors did to a achieve a specific result. Being able to exactly reproduce what previous authors did should improve reproducibility; also for new samples.
- asdff 6y agoIt's also standard fare for typical lab work. A good paper's methods section would contain enough detail for you to go into your lab and repeat the experiment yourself, even down to the catalog number for the reagents to order from the lab supplier. Code should be no different, that's why it's encouraged that authors submit all code used in analysis and generation of figures.
- davnn 6y agoThe fun thing is that there are approaches that want to go beyond this kind of methodological description of a scientific process to code [0, 1]. In general I would say that the more we can remove the human aspect and inherent ambiguity of science, the better for reproducibility. See [2] for a couple of examples. [0] https://www.emeraldcloudlab.com/ https://www.emeraldcloudlab.com/ [1] https://nextjournal.com/ https://nextjournal.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1UgdoP2aeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1UgdoP2aeg