Title | Treading a New Path for Reproducible Research: Part 1 |
Author | Roger Peng |
Year | 2013 |
Journal | Simply Statistics |
Volume | |
Issue | |
Pages | |
Publisher | |
Link_for_PDF_for_Education | |
Link for Open Access | (http://simplystatistics.org/2013/08/21/treading-a-new-path-for-reproducible-research-part-1/) |
DOI | |
Link for DOI | |
Web_Access_Paper | (http://simplystatistics.org/2013/08/21/treading-a-new-path-for-reproducible-research-part-1/) |
Contributed_by | Ron Thisted |
Commentary | - A useful discussion of replication vs reproducibility. This is an important distinction, as they address fundamentally different (but related) problems, and he outlines some benefits of a reproducible workflow. Peng argues that the infamous Duke (Potti) case was not a failure of reproducibility! A provocative assertion (with which I disagree) is ``Reproducibility plays a role only in the most downstream aspect of the research process--post-publication.'' But this is prelude to a discussion of moving reproducibility further forward in the process---a point we discussed in our last conference call. |
Additional_Information | |
Reference_Subject | Reproducible_Research |
Disclaimer | The views expressed within CTSpedia are those of the author and must not be taken to represent policy or guidance on the behalf of any organization or institution with which the author is affiliated. |