Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (GigaScience)
Abstract
When reporting research findings, scientists document the steps they followed so that others can verify and build upon the research. When those steps have been described in sufficient detail that others can retrace the steps and obtain similar results, the research is said to be reproducible. Computers play a vital role in many research disciplines and present both opportunities and challenges for reproducibility. Computers can be programmed to execute analysis tasks, and those programs can be repeated and shared with others. Due to the deterministic nature of most computer programs, the same analysis tasks, applied to the same data, will often produce the same outputs. However, in practice, computational findings often cannot be reproduced due to complexities in how software is packaged, installed, and executed—and due to limitations in how scientists document analysis steps. Many tools and techniques are available to help overcome these challenges. Here we describe seven such strategies. With a broad scientific audience in mind, we describe strengths and limitations of each approach, as well as circumstances under which each might be applied. No single strategy is sufficient for every scenario; thus we emphasize that it is often useful to combine approaches.
Article activity feed
-
Now published in GigaScience doi: 10.1186/s13742-016-0135-4
Stephen R. Piccolo 1Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USAFind this author on Google ScholarFind this author on PubMedSearch for this author on this siteFor correspondence: stephen_piccolo@byu.eduMichael B. Frampton 2Department of Computer Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USAFind this author on Google ScholarFind this author on PubMedSearch for this author on this site
A version of this preprint has been published in the Open Access journal GigaScience (see paper https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-016-0135-4 ), where the paper and peer reviews are published openly under a CC-BY 4.0 license.
These peer reviews were as follows:
Reviewer 1: http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/REVIEW.100623 Reviewer 2: http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/REVIEW.100622
-
