Papers



Submit a Paper!

Browse ReproHack papers

  • Statistical analysis of coverage error in simple global temperature estimators

    Authors: K Cowtan, P Jacobs, P Thorne, R Wilkinson
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   3.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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.

    Tags: Python
  • Quantitative analysis of spectroscopic Low Energy Electron Microscopy data: High-dynamic range imaging, drift correction and cluster analysis

    Authors: Jong T.A. de, Kok, D.N.L, Torren A.J.H. van der, Schopmans H., Tromp R.M., Molen S.J. van der & Jobst J.
    Submitted by hub-admin  
    Number of reviews:   2
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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.

    Tags: Python
  • Determination of the fundamental absorption and optical bandgap of dielectric thin films from single optical transmittance measurements

    Authors: A. Tejada, L. Montañez, C. Torres, P. Llontop, L. Flores-Escalante, F. De Zela, A. Winnacker, and J. A. Guerra
    Submitted by hub-admin    

    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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.

  • Cell Contractility Facilitates Alignment of Cells and Tissues to Static Uniaxial Stretch

    Authors: Rens, E. G., & Merks, R. M. H.
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   1.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   2
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    This paper shows a fun and interesting simulation result. I find it (of course) very important that our results are reproducible. In this paper, however, we did not include the exact code for these specific simulations, but the results should be reproducible using the code of our previous paper in PLOS Computational Biology (Van Oers, Rens et al. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003774). I am genuinely curious to see if there is sufficient information for the Biophys J paper or if we should have done better. Other people have already successfully built upon the 2014 (PLOS) paper using our code; see e.g., https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.012408 and https://doi.org/10.1101/701037).

    Tags: C Matlab
  • Don't Hold My Data Hostage - A Case For Client Protocol Redesign

    Authors: Mark Raasveldt and Hannes Mühleisen:
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   1.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    We made a huge effort to ensure the paper is reproducible. But is it?

    Tags: Python
  • Algorithm configuration data mining for CMA evolution strategies

    Authors: Sander van Rijn, Hao Wang, Bas van Stein, Thomas Bäck
    DOI: 10.1145/3071178.3071205
    Submitted by sjvrijn    
      Mean reproducibility score:   10.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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.

  • Supercurrent-induced Majorana bound states in a planar geometry

    Authors: André Melo, Sebastian Rubbert, Anton R. Akhmerov.
    DOI: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.039
    Submitted by andre_melo    
      Mean reproducibility score:   8.7/10   |   Number of reviews:   3
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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!

    Tags: Python
  • A multiscale Bayesian inference approach to analyzing subdiffusion in particle trajectories

    Authors: K. Hinsen and G.R. Kneller, J.
    Submitted by khinsen    
      Mean reproducibility score:   3.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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)

    Tags: Python
  • Bayesian determination of the effect of a deep eutectic solvent on the structure of lipid monolayers

    Authors: "McCluskey, Andrew R. and Sanchez-Fernandez, Adrian and Edler, Karen J. and Parker, Stephen C. and Jackson, Andrew J. and Campbell, Richard A. and Arnold, Thomas
    DOI: DOI https://doi.org/10.1039/C9CP00203K
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   8.5/10   |   Number of reviews:   2
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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)

    Tags: Python make
  • Spatial modelling of rice yield losses in Tanzania due to bacterial leaf blight and leaf blast in a changing climate

    Authors: C. Duku, A. H. Sparks, S. J. Zwart.
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1580-2
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   4.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   2
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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).

    Tags: Python R ArcGIS

Search for papers

Filter by tags

Python R GDAL GEOS GIS Shiny PROJ Galaxies Astronomy HPC Databases Binder Social Science Stata make Computer Science Jupyter Notebook tidyverse emacs literate earth sciences clumped isotopes org-mode geology eyetracking LaTeX Git ArcGIS Docker Drake SVN knitr C Matlab Mathematica Meta-analysis swig miniconda tensorflow keras Pandas SQL neuroscience robotics deep learning planner reiforcement learning Plasma physics Hybrid-PIC EPOCH Laser Gamma-ray X-ray radiation Petawatt Fortran plasma PIC physics Monte Carlo Atomistic Simulation LAMMPS Electron Transport DFT descriptors interatomic potentials machine learning Molecular Dynamics Python scripting AIRSS structure prediction density functional theory high-throughput machine-learning RNA bioinformatics CFD Fluid Dynamics OpenFOAM C++ DNS Mathematics Droplets Basilisk Particle-In-Cell psychology Stan Finance SAS Replication crisis Economics Malaria consumer behavior number estimation mental arithmetic psychophysics Archaeology Precipitation Epidemiology Parkrun Health Health Economics HTA plumber science of science Zipf networks city size distribution urbanism literature review Preference Visual Questionnaire Mann-Whitney Correlation Conceptual replication Cognitive psychology Multinomial processing tree (MPT) modeling #urbanism #R k-means cluster analysis city-regions Urban Knowledge Systems Topic modelling Planning Support Systems Software Citation Quarto snakemake Numerical modelling Ocean climate physical oceanography apptainer oceanography All tags Clear tags

Key

  Associated with an event
  Available for general review
  Public reviews welcome