Why Scientists Must Share Their Research Code. Baker, M.
Why Scientists Must Share Their Research Code [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
'Reproducibility editor' Victoria Stodden explains the growing movement to make code and data available to others. [Excerpt] [...] [::What does computational reproducibility mean?] It means that all details of computation – code and data – are made routinely available to others. If I can run your code on your data, then I can understand what you did. We need to expose all the steps that went into any discovery that relies on a computer. [::What's the scientific value of running the same data with the same code and getting the same result?] It's true that running the same code on the same data is not advancing science, but it is necessary to advance science. I can guarantee you that two independent implementations of a computational experiment – that is, two people asking the same questions of the same data set – will not give the exact same output. What's important is that we are able to reconcile the differences. And the only way you are going to do that is if you can see the code and the data. [] [...] [Do you see open data becoming the status quo?] The idea that people should be able to get hold of code and data as the general default, that's where we are moving. We're leaving the world of a narrative that depends on computational work without any supporting digital artefacts.
@article{bakerWhyScientistsMust2016,
  title = {Why Scientists Must Share Their Research Code},
  author = {Baker, Monya},
  date = {2016-09},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  issn = {1476-4687},
  doi = {10.1038/nature.2016.20504},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20504},
  abstract = {'Reproducibility editor' Victoria Stodden explains the growing movement to make code and data available to others.

[Excerpt] 

[...]

[::What does computational reproducibility mean?]

It means that all details of computation -- code and data -- are made routinely available to others. If I can run your code on your data, then I can understand what you did. We need to expose all the steps that went into any discovery that relies on a computer.

[::What's the scientific value of running the same data with the same code and getting the same result?]

It's true that running the same code on the same data is not advancing science, but it is necessary to advance science. I can guarantee you that two independent implementations of a computational experiment -- that is, two people asking the same questions of the same data set -- will not give the exact same output. What's important is that we are able to reconcile the differences. And the only way you are going to do that is if you can see the code and the data.

[] [...]

[Do you see open data becoming the status quo?]

The idea that people should be able to get hold of code and data as the general default, that's where we are moving. We're leaving the world of a narrative that depends on computational work without any supporting digital artefacts.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14136921,epistemology,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,free-software,open-data,open-science,peer-review,reproducible-research,research-management,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-knowledge-sharing}
}
Downloads: 0