Papers



Submit a Paper!

Browse ReproHack papers

  • Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA

    Authors: Sahil Loomba, Alexandre de Figueiredo, Simon J. Piatek, Kristen de Graaf, Heidi J. Larson
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1
    Submitted by samuelpawel      
      Mean reproducibility score:   8.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper provided important evidence regarding the effect of misinformation on vaccination intent. Its analyses and conclusions were extremely important for decision makers. Therefore, it is also important that the analyses are reproducible.

  • REMoDNaV: robust eye-movement classification for dynamic stimulation

    Authors: Asim H. Dar, Adina S. Wagner, Michael Hanke
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01428-x
    Submitted by adswa    
      Mean reproducibility score:   7.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   2
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    In theory, reproducing this paper should only require a clone of a public Git repository, and the execution of a Makefile (detailed in the README of the paper repository at https://github.com/psychoinformatics-de/paper-remodnav). We've set up our paper to be dynamically generated, retrieving and installing the relevant data and software automatically, and we've even created a tutorial about it, so that others can reuse the same setup for their work. Nevertheless, we've for example never tried it out across different operating systems - who knows whether it works on Windows? We'd love to share the tips and tricks we found to work, and even more love feedback on how to improve this further.

  • pyKNEEr: An image analysis workflow for open and reproducible research on femoral knee cartilage

    Authors: Bonaretti S, Gold GE, Beaupre GS
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226501
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   6.5/10   |   Number of reviews:   2
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    The paper describes pyKNEEr, a python package for open and reproducible research on femoral knee cartilage using Jupyter notebooks as a user interface. I created this paper with the specific intent to make both the workflows it describes and the paper itself open and reproducible, following guidelines from authorities in the field. Therefore, two things in the paper can be reproduced: 1) workflow results: Table 2 contains links to all the Jupyter notebooks used to calculate the results. Computations are long and might require a server, so if you want to run them locally, I recommend using only 2 or 3 images as inputs for the computations. Also, the paper should be sufficient, but if you need further introductory info, there are a documentation website: https://sbonaretti.github.io/pyKNEEr/ and a "how to" video: https://youtu.be/7WPf5KFtYi8 2) paper graphs: In the captions of figures 1, 4, and 5 you can find links to data repository, code (a Jupyter notebook), and the computational environment (binder) to fully reproduce the graph. These computations can be easily run locally and require a few seconds. All Jupyter notebooks automatically download data from Zenodo and provide dependencies, which should make reproducibility easier.

  • Hyperparameter importance Across Datasets

    Authors: Jan N van Rijn and Frank Hutter
    DOI: 10.1145/3219819.3220058
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   7.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   1
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    I tried hard to make this paper as reproducible as possible, but as techniques and dependencies become more complex, it is hard to make it 100% clear. Any form of feedback is more than welcome.

  • Where should new parkrun events be located? Modelling the potential impact of 200 new events on socio-economic inequalities in access and participation

    Authors: Schneider PP, Smith RA, Bullas AM, Bayley T, Haake SS, Brennan A, Goyder E
    Submitted by hub-admin    
      Mean reproducibility score:   7.0/10   |   Number of reviews:   3
    Why should we attempt to reproduce this paper?

    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.