LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 3 of total 3

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Publishing computational research - a review of infrastructures for reproducible and transparent scholarly communication

    Markus Konkol / Daniel Nüst / Laura Goulier

    Research Integrity and Peer Review, Vol 5, Iss 1, Pp 1-

    2020  Volume 8

    Abstract: Abstract Background The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials reproducibly is challenging, ... ...

    Abstract Abstract Background The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials reproducibly is challenging, several projects have developed solutions to support the release of executable analyses alongside articles. Methods We reviewed 11 applications that can assist researchers in adhering to reproducibility principles. The applications were found through a literature search and interactions with the reproducible research community. An application was included in our analysis if it (i) was actively maintained at the time the data for this paper was collected, (ii) supports the publication of executable code and data, (iii) is connected to the scholarly publication process. By investigating the software documentation and published articles, we compared the applications across 19 criteria, such as deployment options and features that support authors in creating and readers in studying executable papers. Results From the 11 applications, eight allow publishers to self-host the system for free, whereas three provide paid services. Authors can submit an executable analysis using Jupyter Notebooks or R Markdown documents (10 applications support these formats). All approaches provide features to assist readers in studying the materials, e.g., one-click reproducible results or tools for manipulating the analysis parameters. Six applications allow for modifying materials after publication. Conclusions The applications support authors to publish reproducible research predominantly with literate programming. Concerning readers, most applications provide user interfaces to inspect and manipulate the computational analysis. The next step is to investigate the gaps identified in this review, such as the costs publishers have to expect when hosting an application, the consideration of sensitive data, and impacts on the review process.
    Keywords Open reproducible research ; Open science ; Computational statistics ; Scholarly communication ; General Works ; A
    Subject code 050
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-07-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher BMC
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Reproducible research and GIScience

    Daniel Nüst / Carlos Granell / Barbara Hofer / Markus Konkol / Frank O. Ostermann / Rusne Sileryte / Valentina Cerutti

    PeerJ, Vol 6, p e

    an evaluation using AGILE conference papers

    2018  Volume 5072

    Abstract: The demand for reproducible research is on the rise in disciplines concerned with data analysis and computational methods. Therefore, we reviewed current recommendations for reproducible research and translated them into criteria for assessing the ... ...

    Abstract The demand for reproducible research is on the rise in disciplines concerned with data analysis and computational methods. Therefore, we reviewed current recommendations for reproducible research and translated them into criteria for assessing the reproducibility of articles in the field of geographic information science (GIScience). Using this criteria, we assessed a sample of GIScience studies from the Association of Geographic Information Laboratories in Europe (AGILE) conference series, and we collected feedback about the assessment from the study authors. Results from the author feedback indicate that although authors support the concept of performing reproducible research, the incentives for doing this in practice are too small. Therefore, we propose concrete actions for individual researchers and the GIScience conference series to improve transparency and reproducibility. For example, to support researchers in producing reproducible work, the GIScience conference series could offer awards and paper badges, provide author guidelines for computational research, and publish articles in Open Access formats.
    Keywords GIScience ; Open science ; Reproducible research ; Data science ; AGILE ; Reproducible conference publications ; Medicine ; R ; Biology (General) ; QH301-705.5
    Subject code 028
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-07-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher PeerJ Inc.
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Teaching open and reproducible scholarship

    Madeleine Pownall / Flávio Azevedo / Laura M. König / Hannah R. Slack / Thomas Rhys Evans / Zoe Flack / Sandra Grinschgl / Mahmoud M. Elsherif / Katie A. Gilligan-Lee / Catia M. F. de Oliveira / Biljana Gjoneska / Tamara Kalandadze / Katherine Button / Sarah Ashcroft-Jones / Jenny Terry / Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir / Filip Děchtěrenko / Shilaan Alzahawi / Bradley J. Baker /
    Merle-Marie Pittelkow / Lydia Riedl / Kathleen Schmidt / Charlotte R. Pennington / John J. Shaw / Timo Lüke / Matthew C. Makel / Helena Hartmann / Mirela Zaneva / Daniel Walker / Steven Verheyen / Daniel Cox / Jennifer Mattschey / Tom Gallagher-Mitchell / Peter Branney / Yanna Weisberg / Kamil Izydorczak / Ali H. Al-Hoorie / Ann-Marie Creaven / Suzanne L. K. Stewart / Kai Krautter / Karen Matvienko-Sikar / Samuel J. Westwood / Patrícia Arriaga / Meng Liu / Myriam A. Baum / Tobias Wingen / Robert M. Ross / Aoife O'Mahony / Agata Bochynska / Michelle Jamieson / Myrthe Vel Tromp / Siu Kit Yeung / Martin R. Vasilev / Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe / Leticia Micheli / Markus Konkol / David Moreau / James E. Bartlett / Kait Clark / Gwen Brekelmans / Theofilos Gkinopoulos / Samantha L. Tyler / Jan Philipp Röer / Zlatomira G. Ilchovska / Christopher R. Madan / Olly Robertson / Bethan J. Iley / Samuel Guay / Martina Sladekova / Shanu Sadhwani

    Royal Society Open Science, Vol 10, Iss

    a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

    2023  Volume 5

    Abstract: In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been ... ...

    Abstract In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.
    Keywords higher education ; open research ; open scholarship ; open science ; pedagogy ; teaching ; Science ; Q
    Subject code 020
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-05-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher The Royal Society
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

To top