Because: - Two fellow PhDs working on different topics have been able to reproduce some figures by following the README instructions and I hope this extends to other people - I've tried to incorporate as many of the best practices as possible to make my code and data open and accessible - I've tried to make sure that my data is exactly reproducible with the specified random seed strategy - the paper suggests a method that should be useful to other researchers in my field, which is not useful unless my results are reproducible
1. Because it contains customized numerical methods to implement analytical solutions for an engineering problem relevant to cryogenic storage. This will become increasingly relevant in the future with the increase in the use of liquid hydrogen and LNG as fuel. 2. The storage tank is implemented as a Class and there is an opportunity to understand the object oriented programming mindset of the authors. 3. In the provided Jupyter Notebook, thermodynamic data for nitrogen and methane are provided which enable the users the quick implementation. 4. To reproduce some of the figures and results, the storage tanks need to be modified with inputs available in the paper.
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.
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.
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).
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.