Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can I CODECHECK an article if I am doing a repro study? #8

Open
GiulioCentorame opened this issue Jun 30, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Can I CODECHECK an article if I am doing a repro study? #8

GiulioCentorame opened this issue Jun 30, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
the check Improvements, discussions about the actual CODECHECK and processes

Comments

@GiulioCentorame
Copy link

Hi all,
I am currently getting involved in a study assessing the computational reproducibility of several studies in psych science. Since the project fits very well with what's been done with CODECHECK (different focus, but most procedures are probably overlapping), shall I try to start my first CODECHECK with some of the articles I am working on already? Or do you think there might be an issue with it (since it wasn't strictly required by the authors)?
Cheers!

@nuest
Copy link
Member

nuest commented Oct 6, 2020

Hi @GiulioCentorame! Sorry for the delay in answering!

As of now, we're not looking for any more reproductions of already published papers but focus on integrating CODECHECK into peer review processes. However, of course you are welcome to apply the CODECHECK principles where they are useful to you. Depending on the efforts you spend, it could be worth writing one report for each of your reproductions and depositing that as an individual record.

I think you point out a crucial thing: the authors were not aware of it. So, if you want to capture the state of reproducibility, do you plan to publish "failed" reproductions in the same manner? Do you plan to reach out to original authors?

@sje30 any thoughts?

@GiulioCentorame
Copy link
Author

It's alright, don't worry 😃

The project I am currently in plans on reaching out with the authors at a later stage, in case we absolutely need some help with reproducing them, and publishing a failure just in case the reproduction hasn't gone through at all (combining author's help and publicly available material). Since I am not the PI, I would probably involve him in the discussion too with your permission to explain everything in detail.

@sje30
Copy link

sje30 commented Oct 6, 2020

not much to add, beyond "go for it" and agree its probably worth talking to the authors sooner rather than later.

@nuest nuest added the the check Improvements, discussions about the actual CODECHECK and processes label Jan 13, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
the check Improvements, discussions about the actual CODECHECK and processes
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants