---
# System prepended metadata

title: CarpentryConnect 2019 ReproHack Notes
tags: [Templates, Meeting]

---

CarpentryConnect 2019 ReproHack Notes
===

###### tags: `Templates` `Meeting`

:::info
- **Location:** Room 2.15, Kilburn Building, University of Manchester
- **Date:** 27th June 2019 9.30am-15:30pm
- **Participants:**
    - Anna Krystalli (University of Sheffield)
    - Tania Allard (Microsoft)
    - Jez Cope (The British Library)
    - François Michonneau (The Carpentries)
    - Andrew Stewart (University of Manchester)
    - Jess Ward (Newcastle University)
    - Manal Albahlal (University of Manchester)
    - Penny Wheeler (Macquarie University; Australian Catholic University)
    - Radovan Bast (University of Tromso/ NeIC)
    - Anne Fouilloux (University of Oslo, NO)
    - Tim Dennis (UCLA)
:::

# Plan of Action
## Welcome and Introduction 

- [Into Slides](/p/slide-example) TBT

:computer: Form teams
---
Feel free to tackle papers individually or as teams. 

:dart: Select papers
---
- Choose paper from [list of proposed papers](https://sheffield-university.shinyapps.io/ReproHack_CCMcr/)
- Register your team and the paper selected as a [issue](https://github.com/reprohack/reprohack-2019-06-27/issues/new) in the ReproHack repository.

:books: Reproduce
---
- Attempt to reproduce papers from available materials and documentation
- Make notes about your experiences, in particular with respect to how easy it is to:
    - :earth_africa: navigate the materials
    - :repeat: reproduce the analysis
    - :recycle: reuse the materials

:memo:  Feedback to authors
--
Paste links to any derived materials produced here: Remember to include a link to your team issue #.


# Discussion notes 
<!-- Feel free to add thoughts related to questions or add further questions. -->

## Discussion Topic 1: Remote ReproHacks

#### Can we make this happen?


#### What technologies would we need?


#### What would loose compared to the localised experience? Could we make up for it?





***

## Discussion Topic 2: Reproducibility Reports

#### What should they contain?


***

# Regroup notes 
<!-- Any other notes you'd like to add. -->






# Notes 
<!-- Any other notes you'd like to add. -->
I was meant to work on the reproduction of https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12737#supplementary-information but it seems that supplementary files are not accessible eventhough Nature claims they are 🤦🏻‍♀️


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hey <a href="https://twitter.com/nature?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nature</a> I am trying to access the supplementary data and scripts for this paper <a href="https://t.co/ViW03611rj">https://t.co/ViW03611rj</a> and I get a page not found for every single file in the supplementary section. How can I access all of this? 🤔<a href="https://twitter.com/Protohedgehog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Protohedgehog</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/annakrystalli?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@annakrystalli</a> <a href="https://t.co/rYwiVxZjNf">pic.twitter.com/rYwiVxZjNf</a></p>&mdash; ✨ 𝕋𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕒 🇲🇽 🇬🇧 she/her (@ixek) <a href="https://twitter.com/ixek/status/1144173397267681280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


-- (by Manal )
I am wondering if there any automated way to pull the data and code from supplementary or additional files. Should the scientific community start recommend some regulations and formats to smooth the way of how/where these kind of data are being available and benefical?
After a little discussion with Emmy, Binder is one of the promising environments to hold the needed stuff to reproduce a paper. The main concern is the Binder is too slow.

--

(Andrew) I had a go at reproducing the analysis for "Comparing theory-driven and data-driven attractiveness models using images of real women’s faces" by Holzleitner et al. (in press) JEP:HPP. There are two .Rmd scripts in the OSF repo for this paper. The first script involves data processing. It  wouldn't execute as the data files needs weren't on OSF. It turns out there is a very good reason for this - speaking with one of the authors (Ben Jones), it transpired that if those data were open, then people would be able to reconstruct the face images associated and then have access to the associated attractiveness ratings provided by a separate group of participants. After communicating with Ben I understand that a note is being added to the OSF README to make it clear that the first script won't execute because of the restriction on making the associated data freely available. 