In software engineering, the developers’ joy of decomposing and recomposing microservice-based applications has led to an enormous wave of microservice artefact technologies. To understand them better, researchers perform hundreds of experiments and empirical studies on them each year. Improving the reuse and reproducibility of these studies requires two ingredients: A system to automate repetitive experiments, and a research data management system with emphasis on making research reproducible. Both frameworks are now available via the Microservice Artefact Observatory (MAO) and Renku. In this paper, we explain the current capabilities of MAO as a global federated research infrastructure for determining software quality characteristics. Moreover, we emphasise the integration of MAO with Renku to demonstrate how a reproducible end-to-end experiment workflow involving globally distributed research teams looks like.
The need for open, reproducible science is of growing concern in the twenty-first century, with multiple initiatives like the widely supported FAIR principles advocating for data to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. Plant ecological and evolutionary studies are not exempt from the need to ensure that the data upon which their findings are based are accessible and allow for replication in accordance with the FAIR principles. However, it is common that the collection and curation of herbarium specimens, a foundational aspect of studies involving plants, is neglected by authors. Without publicly available specimens, huge numbers of studies that rely on the field identification of plants are fundamentally not reproducible. We argue that the collection and public availability of herbarium specimens is not only good botanical practice but is also fundamental in ensuring that plant ecological and evolutionary studies are replicable, and thus scientifically sound. Data repositories that adhere to the FAIR principles must make sure that the original data are traceable to and re-examinable at their empirical source. In order to secure replicability, and adherence to the FAIR principles, substantial changes need to be brought about to restore the practice of collecting and curating specimens, to educate students of their importance, and to properly fund the herbaria which house them.
Although quantitative image biomarkers (radiomics) show promising value for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment assessment, these biomarkers still lack reproducibility. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the progress in radiomics reproducibility and repeatability in the recent years. Four hundred fifty-one abstracts were retrieved according to our search pattern criteria, with the publication dates ranging from 2017/05/01 to 2020/12/01. Each abstract including the keywords was independently screened by four observers. Forty-two full-text articles were selected for further analysis. Patient population data, radiomic feature classes, feature extraction software, image preprocessing, and reproducibility results were extracted from each article. To support the community with a standardized reporting strategy, we propose a specific reporting checklist to evaluate the feasibility to reproduce each study. Many studies continue to under-report essential reproducibility information: all but one clinical and all but two phantom studies missed to report at least one important item reporting image acquisition. The studies included in this review indicate that all radiomic features are sensitive to image acquisition, reconstruction, tumor segmentation, and interpolation. However, the amount of sensitivity is feature dependent, for instance, textural features were, in general, less robust than statistical features. Radiomics repeatability, reproducibility, and reporting quality can substantially be improved regarding feature extraction software and settings, image preprocessing and acquisition, cutoff values for stable feature selection. Our proposed radiomics reporting checklist can serve to simplify and improve the reporting and, eventually, guarantee the possibility to fully replicate and validate radiomic studies.
Reproducibility, the extent to which consistent results are obtained when an experiment or study is repeated, sits at the foundation of science. The aim of this process is to produce robust findings and knowledge, with reproducibility being the screening tool to benchmark how well we are implementing the scientific method. However, the re-examination of results from many disciplines has caused significant concern as to the reproducibility of published findings. This concern is well-founded – our ability to independently reproduce results build trust both within the scientific community, between scientists and the politicians charged with translating research findings into public policy, and the general public. Within geoscience, discussions and practical frameworks for reproducibility are in their infancy, particularly in subsurface geoscience, an area where there are commonly significant uncertainties related to data (e.g. geographical coverage). Given the vital role of subsurface geoscience as part of sustainable development pathways and in achieving Net Zero, such as for carbon capture storage, mining, and natural hazard assessment, there is likely to be an increased scrutiny on the reproducibility of geoscience results. We surveyed 347 Earth scientists from a broad section of academia, government, and industry to understand their experience and knowledge of reproducibility in the subsurface. More than 85% of respondents recognised there is a reproducibility problem in subsurface geoscience, with >90% of respondents viewing conceptual biases as having a major impact on the robustness of their findings and overall quality of their work. Access to data, undocumented methodologies, and confidentiality issues (e.g. use of proprietary data and methods) were identified as major barriers to reproducing published results. Overall, the survey results suggest a need for funding bodies, data providers, research groups, and publishers to build a framework and set of minimum standards for increasing the reproducibility of, and political and public trust in, the results of subsurface studies.
Jupyter notebooks have gained popularity in educational settings. In France, it is one of the tools used by teachers in post-secondary classes to teach programming. When students complete their assignments, they send their notebooks to the teacher for feedback or grading. However, the teacher may not be able to reproduce the results contained in the notebooks. Indeed, students rely on the non-linearity of notebooks to write and execute code cells in an arbitrary order. Conversely, teachers are not aware of this implicit execution order and expect to reproduce the results by running the cells linearly from top to bottom. These two modes of usage conflict, making it difficult for teachers to evaluate their students' work. This article investigates the use of immediate visual feedback to alleviate the issue of non-reproducibility of students' notebooks. We implemented a Jupyter plug-in called Notebook Reproducibility Monitor (NoRM) that pinpoints the non-reproducible cells of a notebook under modifications. To evaluate the benefits of this approach, we perform a controlled study with 37 students on a programming assignment, followed by a focus group. Our results show that the plug-in significantly improves the reproducibility of notebooks without sacrificing the productivity of students.
Reproducibility is a topic that has received significant attention in recent years. Despite being considered a fundamental factor in the scientific process, recent surveys have shown the difficulty of reproducing already published works, which impacts scientists’ ability to verify, validate, and reuse research findings. Recording provenance data is one of the approaches that can help to mitigate the challenges involved in the reproducibility process. When semantically well defined, provenance can describe the entire process involved in producing a given result. Additionally, the use of semantic web technologies can allow for the provenance data to be machine-actionable. With a focus on computational experiments, this work presents a package for collecting and describing provenance data from R scripts using the REPRODUCE-ME ontology to describe the path taken to produce results. We describe the package implementation process and demonstrate how it can help describe the story of experiments defined as R scripts to support reproducibility.