The code and data are both on GitHub. The paper has been published in Wellcome Open Research and has been replicated by multiple other authors.
This papers represents an important milestone in meta-science, as it is one of the first large-scale replication projects outside the social sciences.
Even though the approach in the paper focuses on a specific measurement (clumped isotopes) and how to optimize which and how many standards we use, I hope that the problem is general enough that insight can translate to any kind of measurement that relies on machine calibration. I've committed to writing a literate program (plain text interspersed with code chunks) to explain what is going on and to make the simulations one step at a time. I really hope that this is understandable to future collaborators and scientists in my field, but I have not had any code review internally and I also didn't receive any feedback on it from the reviewers. I would love to see if what in my mind represents "reproducible code" is actually reproducible, and to learn what I can improve for future projects!
Most of the material is available through Jupyter notebooks in GitHub, and it should be easy to reproduce with the help of Binder. With the notebooks, you could experiment with different parameters to the ones analyzed in the paper. It also contains a large dataset of physical parameters of galaxies analysed in this work. We expect this work to be easily reproducible in the steps described in the repository.
Basic analyses, which are easy to understand and reproduce + the paper contains multiple imputation, which can be interesting; ALL materials are available
It was a null findings paper that disappointed many people. Could I have made a mistake in the coding?; I'm interested in using it as an example of reproducible research and learning from ReproHack. It's nerve wracking to submit for inspection from others so I also want to overcome that fear and be able to lead my students by example. I'll be available via the Slack group or other forms for communication as suggested by organisers. Please note it's only the gene expression and related data that's available on ArrayExpress.
This is perhaps an interesting 'meta' example for ReproHack as in this study we attempted to reproduce analyses reporrted in 25 published articles. So it seems even more important that our own analyses are reproducible! We tried our best to adhere to best practices in this regard, so we would be very keen to know if anyone has problems reproducing our analyses and/or learning how we can make the process easier. A couple of things to note: 1. In addition to the links to the data and analysis scripts provided above, we also have a Code Ocean container for this article (https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.1796004.v3), which should theoretically allow you to reproduce the analyses with the click of a single button (we hope!). 2. In addition to the main research analyses (for which I've provided links above), we also have data, scripts, and Code Ocean containers for each of the reprodubility attempts for the 25 articles we looked at. I don't know if you will also want to look at this level of the analyses, but if you do then take a look at Supplementary Information section E here: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/suppl/10.1098/rsos.201494 For each reproducibility attempt, there is a short 'vignette' describing the outcome, and a link to data/scripts on the OSF and a Code Ocean container.
I suggested a few papers last year. I’m hoping that we’ve improved our reproducibility with this one, this year. We’ve done our best to package it up both in Docker and as an R package. I’d be curious to know what the best way to reproduce it is found to be. Working through vignettes or spinning up a Docker instance. Which is the preferred method?
It is kind of an easy reproducible code. It reads the data, makes few descriptive statistical analysis and plots figures using ggplot2.
Cleaning the databases used for this study was one of the most challenging aspects of it, so making it public is the best way to make the more out of it. We made an effort to document all analyses and data wrangling steps. We are interested to know if it is truly reproducible so that we can follow this same scheme for further projects, or adjust accordingly.
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.
This paper provides a novel approach to identifying oncogenes based on RNA overexpression in subsets of tumor relative to adjacent normal tissue. Showing that this study can be reproduced would aid other researchers who are attempting to identify oncogenes in other cancer types using the same methodology.
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.
Currently submitted paper on COVID19 on mental health. Unique clinical data (time series during the pandemic onset) & methods, hopefully fun to work on. Possibly too boring / easy to reproduce given my data & code? Not sure.
If all went right, the analysis should be fully reproducible without the need to make any adjustments. The paper aims to find optimal locations for new parkruns, but we were not 100% sure how 'optimal' should be defined. We provide a few examples, but the code was meant to be flexible enough to allow potential decision makers to specify their own, alternative objectives. The spatial data set is also quite interesting and fun to play around with. Cave: The full analysis takes a while to run (~30+ min) and might require >= 8gb ram.
Open data and reproducibility was important in this project.
It is a rare find of full reproducibility in the field of plant disease epidemiology.
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.
The format of the paper is a bit unusual: it is contained, and compiled as, an R package. Although this would seem, on its face, to make it easier to reproduce, it is an open question how obvious it will be. I wonder to what extent people reproducing the results would prefer this to simple R scripts.
This is a small dataset with a lot of missing data, so it's quite challenging to produce reliable results. It uses multiple imputation to fill the missing data, so it would be interesting to see whether the results hold up when this is redone. However, since the multiple imputation takes a couple of hours to run (on a decent laptop), the final multiply imputed data is also included. Additionally, multiply imputed data needs a different statistical analysis approach, which you can get familiar with.