• No results found

Reproducible Publications at AGILE conferences: Proposed guidelines for authors

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Reproducible Publications at AGILE conferences: Proposed guidelines for authors"

Copied!
1
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

REPRODUCIBLE

PUBLICATIONS AT

AGILE

CONFERENCES

.

Daniel Nüst University of Münster Frank Ostermann University of Twente Rusne Sileryte Delft University of Technology Barbara Hofer University of Salzburg Carlos Granell Universitat Jaume I de Castellón Karl Broman University of Wisconsin - Madison Marta Teperek Delft University of Technology Anita Graser Austrian Institute of Technology Kristina Hettne Leiden University Libraries

.

Reviewers

of AGILE papers are expected to know the author guidelines and, where possible, evaluate the plausible

completeness of the provided data and software availability documentation. Given that double blind peer-review process

might prevent the authors from sharing direct links to data and code, reviewers evaluate based on the content of the data and

software availability section, that information needed to reproduce research findings is likely to be provided.

Data and Software Availability:

All research data and software supporting this publication

are available in an online repository, with the DOI

10.17605/

OSF.IO/PHMCE

. The computational workflow

is published as Open Source on GitHub at

https://github.com/o2r-project/reproducible-agile

REPRODUCIBILITY SPEC

TRUM

DA

T

A

Use open

data

formats

PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS...

...AND REVIEWERS

Specify a

license

Use a data

repository

providing a

DOI

Publish

data

description

Publish with

discipline -

specific

metadata

Publish in

discipline -

specific

repository

Make your

data FAIR

Make your

data as

open as

possible

Add your

own...

Describe computational environment and infrastructure Use generally available proprietary tools Document all steps in a text file and/flowchart

Publish in a

repository

providing a

DOI

Specify a

license

Follow “Good enough practices” for scientific software

Use

development

guidelines

for your

language

METHODS

Data and

software

availability

statement

Data and Software Availability:

All research data and software supporting this publication are available in an online repository,

with the DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHMCE.

The computational workflow is published as Open Source on GitHub at https://github.com/o2r-project/reproducible-agile

Provide

README file

for your

scripts/

models

Use (and

create)

open

source tools

Cite core

modules &

tools,

including

your own

Use a versioned core repository such as GitHub or GitLab

Provide a

software

package

Provide

structured

metadata,

tests/CI

https://osf.io/phmce/

Provide the

actual

environment

AGILE Initiative: Reproducible Publications at AGILE Conferences

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

When comparing the individual implementations of Voronoi and Geohash to this optimum, Geohash-4 seemed to achieve the best results with lower partition sizes with lower variation

Een van de oorzaken van de serials crisis is dat onder invloed van die “prik- kelstructuur” individuele wetenschappers nauwe- lijks gemotiveerd zijn om zich bezig te houden met de

(as the anonymous sorting of the biblatex-anonymous+ package), but considers the realauthor and realeditor fields to sort list by authors’ name (as the

geri@bluesimplex.com Institute of Mathematics, Great University. A rather long title without

The European Commission does not mention privacy restrictions as a possible solution and argues on their website also: ‘that decisions to remove content are

Concluderend over de productietijd kunnen we zeggen dat traditioneel drukken een voordeel heeft wanneer er maar één specifieke brochure wordt gemaakt, waar bovendien de content niet

The consultancy organizations that exist in the current business network do not yet possess the required knowledge to autonomously provide their customers with a fitting solution

Within this sample, 64 studies were considered relevant since they (i) discussed firms’ incentive to publish; (ii) examined the publication activity of firms or industrial