3 ms·
Enabling reproducibility is a costly investment, but the cost of doing unreproducible work is even higher. This is a calculation I rarely see organization make.
by physicsgraph 5y ago
Enabling reproducibility is a costly investment, but the cost of doing unreproducible work is even higher. This is a calculation I rarely see organization make.
More frequently everything is a one-off, with failure recurring randomly until a working (though not reproducible) approach is found. I'm not sure how to spin this evolutionary approach positively, as it can result in fragile outcomes.
There is software infrastructure that enables reproducibility (virtual machines, and more recently containerization), but this concept rarely makes it to written documentation.
- beckman466 5y ago> Enabling reproducibility is a costly investment, but the cost of doing unreproducible work is even higher. This is a calculation I rarely see organization make. Hopefully things like Alex Freeman’s http://science-octopus.org http://science-octopus.org (or something like it) will take off very soon, which addresses this well (and will make science more accountable). Meet Octopus, a new vision for scientific publishing: https://www.science.org/careers/2018/11/meet-octopus-new-vision-scientific-publishing https://www.science.org/careers/2018/11/meet-octopus-new-vis... Dr. Alexandra Freeman | Octopus: a radical new approach to scientific publishing - 29 October 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af6aITLEoD8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af6aITLEoD8
- physicsgraph 5y agoThanks for the links. Sounds like an audacious effort. Pivots away from the current approach are very difficult. Even minor deviations like https://arxiv.org/ https://arxiv.org/ take decades to gain "normal" status in the science community.