petersuber,

New study: "We find that scientists are overwhelmingly (95%) failing to publish their and that there has been no significant improvement over time, but we also find evidence that code sharing can considerably improve , particularly when combined with publication."
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3222221/v1

archaeoklammt,

@petersuber

Interesting and provoking or better, it's underlining, what I suspected: it is worth working people to do so.

@christof

hyc,
@hyc@mastodon.social avatar

@petersuber if it's not reproducible, then it's a worthless paper. If code is required for reproduction attempts, then it must be published alongside the paper.

mdziemann,

@hyc @petersuber alas most research papers are not reproducible and journals are not keen to mandate it

mlinksva,
@mlinksva@mastodon.social avatar

@petersuber thanks for sharing, useful.

Mild peeve: the paper's link to its code is buried in a supplementary .docx file; download, copy paste https://github.com/bmaitner/R_citations into browser :-/

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • opensource
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • ngwrru68w68
  • ethstaker
  • JUstTest
  • everett
  • Leos
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • Durango
  • modclub
  • mdbf
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines