Papers



Submit a Paper!

Browse ReproHack papers

  • Droplet impact onto a spring-supported plate: analysis and simulations

    Authors: Michael J. Negus, Matthew R. Moore, James M. Oliver, Radu Cimpeanu
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10665-021-10107-5
    Submitted by MNegus      
      Mean reproducibility score:   8.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    The direct numerical simulations (DNS) for this paper were conducted using Basilisk (http://basilisk.fr/). As Basilisk is a free software program written in C, it can be readily installed on any Linux machine, and it should be straightforward to then run the driver code to re-produce the DNS from this paper. Given this, the numerical solutions presented in this paper are a result of many high-fidelity simulations, which each took approximately 24 CPU hours running between 4 to 8 cores. Hence the difficulty in reproducing the results should mainly be in the amount of computational resources it would take, so HPC resources will be required. The DNS in this paper were used to validate the presented analytical solutions, as well as extend the results to a longer timescale. Reproducing these numerical results will build confidence in these results, ensuring that they are independent of the system architecture they were produced on.

  • Optimizing the Use of Carbonate Standards to Minimize Uncertainties in Clumped Isotope Data

    Authors: Ilja J. Kocken, Inigo A. Müller, Martin Ziegler
    DOI: 10.1029/2019GC008545
    Submitted by japhir      

    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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!

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 All tags Clear tags

Key

  Associated with an event
  Available for general review
  Public reviews welcome