Category Archives: science policy

A lot of sensible advice here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHryMtEBkB4

A combination of Dr. Stark’s name and the recent time I’ve spend absorbing the Marvel Comic Universe through Luke Cage [link] led to a culture insight, though. Some of my favorite superheros’ origin would have me believe that irreproducible research is shortest path to greatness. Maybe not for the (usually evil) scientist, but still.

—–Original Message—–
From: Ben Marwick
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:06 PM
To: escience_reproducibility
Subject: [Reproducible] New paper on reproducible research in archaeology

Hi everyone,

You might be interested to know of a peer-reviewed paper on reproducible research in archaeology that I’ve just had published.

The paper owes a big debt to the UW eScience Institute, especially the Reproducibility and Open Science Working Group. So this paper is a kind of tribute to all of you in that group who have helped me make sense of reproducibility, thanks!

Here’s the citation and a link to the PDF:

Marwick, B. (2016). Computational reproducibility in archaeological
research: Basic principles and a case study of their implementation.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1-27. doi:
10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9
https://github.com/benmarwick/basic_computational_reproducibility_case_study#computational-reproducibility-in-archaeological-research-basic-principles-and-a-case-study-of-their-implementation

All the gory details of the case study paper are here:
https://github.com/benmarwick/1989-excavation-report-Madjebebe so you can give it a try. It works on my machine 😉

Happy reading!

Ben

Lots of material on Reproducible Research in my backlog… I’m going to get it out there for you (or at least for future-me).

—–Original Message—–
From: Reproducible On Behalf Of Ben Marwick
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 9:53 PM
Subject: [Reproducible] Language Log: Replicability vs. reproducibility — or is it the other way around?

A popular academic blog on linguistics just put up a post with a nice discussion of definitions of reproducibility in science:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21956

The Reproducibility and Open Science (ROS) Working Group recently finished up a form to begin to gather information on Reproducible Products from the community.

Please take a few minutes to submit information on any product (peer-reviewed manuscript, preprint, or other product). It is only about 20 questions with many multiple choice question.

The google form can be accessed @
http://goo.gl/hHcFlK

Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks
Steven

Steven Roberts
faculty.washington.edu/sr320

From: Abraham D. Flaxman
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 4:40 PM
To: reproducible@u.washington.edu
Subject: [Reproducible] licenses and reproducibility: the scholarly communication lens

The recent discussion on reproducibility and licensing inspired me to read something historical about UW and software licensing that has been on my desk for a while. I think others on the list might find it interesting as well, so I scanned a copy for you: https://www.dropbox.com/s/79k92iwm20159of/williams_barnett_digital_ventures_2009.pdf?dl=0

I particularly like the idea that software is communication, and the university is an institute that is good at scholarly communication and at teaching. I think there is some framing here that could be valuable for reproducible research as well. Irreproducible results are, in a sense, a communication failure, and a lot of what we are talking about on this list are different ways to improve our scholarly communication.

–Abie