I hope that the evaluation framework introduced in the paper can become used by other researchers working on mutational signatures.
We invested a lot of work to make the analyses from the paper reproducible and we are very curious how the documentation could be improved and if people run into any problems.
I used a lot of different tools and strategies to make this paper easily reproducible at different levels. There's Docker container for the highest level of reproducibility, and package versions are managed with renv. The data used in the paper is hosted on Zenodo to avoid long queue times when downloading from the Climate Data Store and future-proof for when it goes away and checksumed before using it.
The method is trained on the data that were available, but it is meant to be re-trainable as soon as new data are published. It would be great to be really sure that even someone else will be able to do it. In case we receive any feedback, we would be really happy to improve our Github repository so as to make the reproduction easier!
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!
I suggested a few papers last year. I’m hoping that we’ve improved our reproducibility with this one, this year. We’ve done our best to package it up both in Docker and as an R package. I’d be curious to know what the best way to reproduce it is found to be. Working through vignettes or spinning up a Docker instance. Which is the preferred method?
If all went right, the analysis should be fully reproducible without the need to make any adjustments. The paper aims to find optimal locations for new parkruns, but we were not 100% sure how 'optimal' should be defined. We provide a few examples, but the code was meant to be flexible enough to allow potential decision makers to specify their own, alternative objectives. The spatial data set is also quite interesting and fun to play around with. Cave: The full analysis takes a while to run (~30+ min) and might require >= 8gb ram.
It uses the drake R package that should make reproducibility of R projects much easier (just run make.R and you're done). However, it does depend on very specific package versions, which are provided by the accompanying docker image.
This paper is reproduced weekly in a docker container on continuous integration, but it is also set up to work via local installs as well. It would be interesting to see if it's reproducible with a human operator who knows nothing of the project or toolchain.
