Review of
"No Effect of Nature Representations on State Anxiety, Actual and Perceived Noise"

Review of "No Effect of Nature Representations on State Anxiety, Actual and Perceived Noise"

Submitted by lee.jones  

Dec. 2, 2021, 12:09 p.m.

Lead reviewer


Review Body


Did you manage to reproduce it?
Partially Reproducible
Reproducibility rating
How much of the paper did you manage to reproduce?
5 / 10
Briefly describe the procedure followed/tools used to reproduce it

In the limited 2 hours which was available we were able run the script and check some analysis was computationally reproducible.

Briefly describe your familiarity with the procedure/tools used by the paper.

I am a statistician so am familiar with methods and R

Which type of operating system were you working in?
Windows Operating System
What additional software did you need to install?

R packages

What software did you use

R studio, R

What were the main challenges you ran into (if any)?

Encoding problems, changing between I assume Mac and widows lead to problems. The problems occurred because of different versions of dealing with symbols, these problems could be avoided by using clean text in Janitor, to clean the data names. It is a good data practice especially with final csv files for analysis to never have spaces or symbols in the name, for example you have Phase (c=Intervention), my computer did not read it in the same way as yours. Also some of the name of variables are sentences, it would be better if they had meaningful short names

Spelling mistake in installing GPArotation.

This is not fully reproduceable as the top of the file need to be replaced to map the drive. This is the older way to do this, while correct it breaks reproducibility, a much better way to achieve this is to use projects within R.

I would suggest not including the install packages as this can can cause issues for other people's installation. R tells asks you to install anything that is missing so it is not a big issue anymore. Only load the packages once during a session, Remove any redundant code.

Note the dates in your files are not in a good format. please concider using yyyy-mm-dd

What were the positive features of this approach?

The syntax was clear and was easy to follow with comments

Any other comments/suggestions on the reproducibility approach?

I can see the authors have tried hard to make this work reproduceable. It would not take much more effort to make this fully reproducible using RMarkdown.


Documentation rating
How well was the material documented?
6 / 10
How could the documentation be improved?

Could be improved by using projects and hithub and R markdown so it then could be just cloned and run.

What do you like about the documentation?

Overall, there was a clear structure to find the materials.

After attempting to reproduce, how familiar do you feel with the code and methods used in the paper?
6 / 10
Any suggestions on how the analysis could be made more transparent?

the use of R markdown would make it easier to understand which analysis went with what part of the paper.


Reusability rating
Rate the project on reusability of the material
6 / 10
Permissive Data license included:  
Permissive Code license included:  

Any suggestions on how the project could be more reusable?

Use good data practices, such as name and date conventions as described above

Any final comments