Paraphernalia
PPubMed20 Jul 2021Cited 27×

CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Daniel Nüst, Stephen J. Eglen

Abstract

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research. To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

A figure from CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
fig. from the paper

§ The Valyu brief

Reading the full paper and taking notes. This takes a few seconds…

§ Ask this paper

Ask a question about this paper

Valyu reads the full text and answers from what the paper actually says.

Q.

Searching the other archives…

CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] · Paraphernalia