We know how challenging it can be for urbanism researchers to make their papers reproducible by publishing associated code and data, so we want to showcase the value of the practice, both for original authors and as a learning experience for those who attempt to reproduce the work.
This ReproHack is tailored to the specific reproducibility challenges of the urbanism research community, so we welcome paper submissions and event registrations from the fields of urban design, urban planning, urban studies, landscape architecture and associated areas of research.
It’s important to highlight that our events are by no means an attempt to criticise or discredit work. We see reproduction as beneficial scientific activity in itself, with useful outcomes for authors and valuable learning experiences for the participants and the research community as a whole.
By joining our event, you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct.
We invite nominations for papers that have associated data as well as code or a description of the analytical workflow publicly available. We also encourage analyses based on open source tools as we cannot guarantee participants will have access to specialised licenced software.
Join us at the hack to dig into exciting science, learn more about reproducibility, working with other people’s code and data and more!
|13:00||Welcome and Orientation|
|13:15||TALK: Hugo Ledoux|
|13:45||Tips and Tricks for Reproducing and Reviewing|
|14:10||Select papers, chat and coffee|
|14:20||Round I of ReproHacking|
|15:20||Re-group and sharing of experiences|
|15:45||Round II of ReproHacking - Complete Feedback form|
|16:45||Re-group and sharing of experiences|
|16:55||Feedback and Closing|
We’ll track of discussions and collaborative notes on the event hackpad
As all ReproHack events, we strive to make this event open and inclusive to all. As such the event is governed by the ReproHack Code of Conduct. Please read it before participating. By participating, you are expected to uphold this code.
We encourage authors that are keen and submitting to a specific event, to engage with the event, even just to say hello! You can do so on twitter (check for event-specific hashtags or use
@ReproHack) or by
review-chat channel in our
slack group. We’ve
also set up an
authors channel in our
slack group as a place where you can reach the organisers prior to the hack.
We’ll start with a brief review of the available papers and then form into teams. Feel free to work on your own if you prefer but we highly recommend you discuss your experiences with fellow participants as you work.
Add your details in the participants section of the hackpad so we have a complete list of participants (e.g name, affiliation, social links, pronouns etc).
In your teams, (or individually if you prefer) decide which paper you wish to work on.
Create user accounts on the Hub for all reviewers that want to be associated with the review.
Register your team and paper by logging the title of the selected paper and the name(s) of the reviewer(s) in the hackpad. You can use the following template:
### **Paper:** <Title of the paper reproduced> **Reviewers:** Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2 etc.
Follow any instructions/documentation associated with the papers and try and reproduce the work. As you work through your paper, keep in mind the main points on which feedback to the authors will be provided, Access, Reproducibility, Documentation and Reusability (see our participant guidelines for more information). It might help to have a look at the Review form before you begin and keep notes during your review. Feel free to use the event hackpad to record general findings you wish to share with the group.
We’ll come together during the day to discuss progress and troubleshoot any sticking points.
Should you finish reproducing your paper quickly, feel free to explore the work more deeply. For example, you could try and run additional analyses, create new plots or even combine materials with your own or other open materials available on the web!
Should you produce any additional materials relating to your reproduction during the session (e.g. a markdown report, jupyter notebook, issue or pull request in authors repository), feel free to share it publicly and add any links to such materials to the hackpad.
The most important part of the day is recording our experiences as feedback to the authors. Please complete a Review feedback form for the paper you've selected, ideally, by the end of the day. Please also remember to be kind and constructive. Reproducibility is hard and all authors submitting their papers have been incredibly brave. Feel free to browse any public feedback submissions to get inspiration.
You can use the hackpad to take notes and summarise your experiences.
Feel free to contribute any additional thoughts on our collaborative hackpad. These can help form the basis for a blog post on the event.
This article was meant to be entirely reproducible, with the data and code published alongside the article. It is however not embedded within a container (e.g. Docker). Will it past the reproducibility test tomorrow? next year? I'm curious.
This paper publishes details that describe methodological advances. It is linked to another paper entitled "Design possibilities of leftover spaces as a pocket park in relation to planting enclosure". This paper is interesting for anyone who wants to learn how to analyze a visual questionnaire with different variables. Through this paper, we help improve the transparency of the process.
The R-based k-means cluster analysis could be done again for the same set of cities with more recent data (e.g. 2021 census) or for another set of cities - can we construct demography-based city typologies in general is that an exceptional situation valid only for some types of cities? Therefore, attempting to reproduce the results is important.
This article used an open-source python repository for its analysis. It is well-suited for reproduction as more literature evolves on the intersection of urban planning and climate change. The adapted code is published alongside the article.