This paper is fully reproducible; we provide the protocol that the different modelers used, the data produced from these models, the observed data, and the code to run the analysis that led to the results of the paper, figures, and text. I have not come across any other paper in forestry that is as fully reproducible as our paper, so it might also be a rare example in this field and hopefully a motivation to others to do so. Please notice that we do not provide the models that were used to run the simulations, as these are the results used (or data collection), but we do provide the data resulting from these simulations.
We spend a lot of time to make our analyses reproducible. A review would allow us to collect some information on whether we are successful with it.
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.
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).
I guess it could be a cool learning experience. The paper is written with knitr, uses a seed, is part of the R package it describes, was openly written using version control (SVN, R-Forge) and is available in an open access journal (@up_jors).
