For the past decade, scientists have been worried about the so-called replication crisis. Enter the Preclinical Reproducibility and Robustness channel. The website launched the first week in February with the goal of publishing the results of replication studies. The journal wants to keep scientists accountable for their work.
The 2016 GBSI Summit—"Research Reproducibility: Innovative Solutions to Drive Quality" welcomed premiere life science thought leaders, including Arizona State University biomarker researcher Joshua LaBaer, MD, PhD, and science correspondent and moderator Richard Harris (currently on leave from National Public Radio as a visiting scholar this spring at Arizona State University), to explore the driving forces and profound impacts behind the issues.
This blog post is apart of the Love Your Data campaign #LYD16, a global and cross-institution awareness campaign for open data, research reproducibility, and research data management. This post features ReproMatch and ReproZip as important tools for achieving reproducibility.
Finding a relevant reporting guideline for a study can be very difficult. Here we introduce a pilot experiment starting for some of the BMC-series journals which aims to overcome this issue.
ReproZip was featured in a post on the Library of Congress's digital preservation blog, the Signal. The author, Genevieve Havemeyer-King, writes "ReproZip is a tool being developed at NYU "aimed at simplifying the process of creating reproducible experiments from command-line executions", and could be something to consider as an alternative to many costly web-archiving services for preservation of internet-based projects and applications."
A presentation by Philip B. Stark of University of California at Berkeley that gives a great 101-style look into what the everyday researcher can do to make their science more reproducible.