The paper describes pyKNEEr, a python package for open and reproducible research on femoral knee cartilage using Jupyter notebooks as a user interface. I created this paper with the specific intent to make both the workflows it describes and the paper itself open and reproducible, following guidelines from authorities in the field. Therefore, two things in the paper can be reproduced: 1) workflow results: Table 2 contains links to all the Jupyter notebooks used to calculate the results. Computations are long and might require a server, so if you want to run them locally, I recommend using only 2 or 3 images as inputs for the computations. Also, the paper should be sufficient, but if you need further introductory info, there are a documentation website: https://sbonaretti.github.io/pyKNEEr/ and a "how to" video: https://youtu.be/7WPf5KFtYi8 2) paper graphs: In the captions of figures 1, 4, and 5 you can find links to data repository, code (a Jupyter notebook), and the computational environment (binder) to fully reproduce the graph. These computations can be easily run locally and require a few seconds. All Jupyter notebooks automatically download data from Zenodo and provide dependencies, which should make reproducibility easier.
Paper and codes+data have been published 4 years ago, will they still work? I always try to release data and codes to reproduce my papers, but I seldom receive feedback. It would be useful to have comments from a reproducers' team, in order to improve sharing for future research (I switched from MATLAB to Python already).
It'll a great helpful to independently check the scientific record I've published, so that errors, if there are any, could be corrected. Also, I will learn how to share the data in a more accessible to other if you could give me feedback.
I tried hard to make this paper as reproducible as possible, but as techniques and dependencies become more complex, it is hard to make it 100% clear. Any form of feedback is more than welcome.
To see whether we did a good enough job in providing data and methods, and to check how the code has aged with respect to current libraries.
Low Energy Electron Microscopy (LEEM) is a somewhat specific form of electron microscopy used to study surfaces and 2D materials. In this paper we describe a set of data processing techniques applied to LEEM and adapted to the peculiarities of LEEM. This is combined with a parallelized Python implementation using Dask in separate notebooks. So if you are interested in microscopy, image analysis, clustering of experimental physics data or parallel Python, this paper should be interesting to you.
The results of the individual studies (4) could be interpreted in support for the hypothesis, but the meta-analysis suggested that implicit identification was not a useful predictor overall. This conclusion is an important goalpost for future work.
We propose a simple method to retrieve optical constants from single optical transmittance measurements, in particular in the fundamental absorption region. The construction of needed envelopes is arbitrary and will depend on the user. However, the method should still be robust and deliver similar results.
We made a huge effort to ensure the paper is reproducible. But is it?
The original data took quite a while to produce for a previous paper, but for this paper, all tables and figures should be exactly reproducible by simply running the jupyter notebook.
We've tried to make it as easy as possible to reproduce. There's some fun physics on the paper and it's all done with Python!
This is one of the very few papers in biomolecular simulation for which code and data are available and which should be reproducible. But it is also three years old, so it is an interesting test case for the longevity of reproducible research. The infrastructure software is available at http://www.activepapers.org/python-edition/ (with instructions for installation and use)
I believe this represents the only example of a reproducible paper from scattering data collected at Diamond Light Source (UK) and the Institute Laue-Langevin (France)
This was my third attempt at making a paper fully reproducible. To date I it's the most reproducible that I have published. I'm interested to know what stumbling blocks exist that I'm not aware of (aside from needing software like ArcGIS to fully rerun the complete analysis).
