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.
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.
Metadata annotation is key to reproducibility in sequencing experiments. Reproducing this research using the scripts provided will also show the current level of annotation in years since 2015 when the paper was published.
