I tried as hard as possible to make it reproducible, which it is on my computer. I would be happy to see if this still works on other computers. Moreover, by allowing easy reproducibility, I hope that other people may easily build research on top of this work.
I tried hard to make it reproducible, so hopefully this paper can serve as an example on how reproducibility can be achieved. I think that being reproducible with only few commands to type in a terminal is quite an achievment. At least in my field, where I usually see code published along with paper, but with almost no documentation on how to rerun it.
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.
We think this is an interesting paper for anyone who wants to learn to build an API with the R package plumber. This is a novel method in health economics, but we believe will help improve the transparency of modelling methods in our field.
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!
