Introductions

Who am I?

Dr Anna Krystalli (@annakrystalli)

• Research Software Engineer University of Sheffield
• Software Peer Review Editor rOpenSci
• Co-organiser Sheffield R Users Group

Why am I here?

I believe there's lots to learn about Reproducibility from working with real published projects.

Who is my favorite animated character?

Stitch!

Who are you?

Why are you here?

Who is your favorite animated character?

Plan of Action

Reproduce paper / Hack the ReproHack

1. Project review and team formation

2. Select and register your project

3. Work on your project!

4. Re-group part-way through.

5. Feedback at the end (group & authors)

Your Work Might be Publishable!

ReScience C

ReScience C is an open-access peer-reviewed journal that targets computational research and encourages the explicit replication of already published research, promoting new and open-source implementations in order to ensure that the original research is reproducible.

What is Replication:

• Repeating a published protocol
• Respecting its spirit and intentions
• Varying the technical details, e.g. using different software, initial conditions, etc.

Change something that everyone believes shouldn’t matter, and see if the scientific conclusions are affected

Replicate your paper

• Finished early? Consider attempting replication!
• Replications could be considered for publication in ReScience C Journal

But! ReScience got in touch and considering creating a new category!

• Reproducibility Report:
  • were results reproduced?
  • how hard/easy was it to reproduce?
  • did architectures differ etc.
  • what else? discussion topic

Then https://scigen.report got in touch:

Feed back

Feed back

• Regroup part way through to discuss progress and troubleshoot any sticking points
• Feedback to authors using form by end of session
• Feedback to group at the end, contribute to discussions

Code of Conduct

Event governed by Carpentries Code of Conduct

Additional Considerations

• Reproducibility is hard!

• Submitting authors are incredibly brave!

Thank you Authors!

• Without them there would be no ReproHack.

• Show gratitude and appreciation for their effort and bravery.

• Constructive criticism only please!

Let's go!

Paper / hack topic review

papers: bit.ly/CCMcr19-ReproHack-papers

topics: bit.ly/CCMcr19-ReproHack-topics

Team formation / project registration

• Fine to work individually
• Register your team and paper / topic by opening a new issue. bit.ly/CCMcr19-ReproHack
• Add your details to the hackpad.

Mid-point regroup

• Briefly describe the approach to reproducibility the paper has taken.
• Anything in particular you like about the paper's approach?
• Anything you're having difficulty with?

Feedback to authors

• Please complete the feedback form for authors bit.ly/CCMcr19-ReproHack-feedback
• Feel free to take notes on the hackpad

Final regroup

• So, how did you get on?
• Final comments.
• If there's time, tackle some discussion topics (see hackpad).
• One thing you liked, one thing that can be improved (use post it's if you prefer)

Further Resources

• The Turing Way: a lightly opinionated guide to reproducible data science.
• Packaging data analytical work reproducibly using R (and friends): how researchers can improve the reproducibility of their work using research compendia based on R packages and related tools

THANK YOU ALL!

• Thank you PARTICIPANTS for coming!

• Thank you AUTHORS for submitting!