In the project, we have discussed extensively what reproducibility means. We debated what a reproducible paper should allow us to do. A crucial aspect to further develop these ideas for us are practical evaluations. That is where you come into the picture.
Do you have an almost reproducible paper?
We are looking for scientific publications that we can use to test our approach. We have been in touch with former and current colleagues and collaborators, but we would like to reach beyond our immediate circles. Our “test corpus” of publications must cover a certain breadth of topics, data formats, used tooles/packages et cetera.
What are we looking for?
What do you get?
But I neither need nor want your help!
You write your papers in Sweave or RMarkdown, and amend them with an R package including the data and code? Then you are on track for a reproducible workflow. Congratulations! We would really enjoy packaging your workflow in a reproducible way, becaues it will not be too hard. But we don’t just want such apparently simple cases. We are well aware that journals might ask for very different looking submissions, even if authors want to use literate programming solutions.
Instead we look forward to work with your workspace directory as it is. This way we learn more about people’s workflows and practices, be they good, bad, or just pragmatic. Trust us that you are not the only one for whom living up to her/his standards and expertise is a challenge in day-to-day research.
This is an open call
Please forward this website to any of your colleagues who might fit the profile, and don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions. Thank you in advance!
Cite this blog post or page as
"Open call for research workspaces" in Opening Reproducible Research: a research project website and blog. Daniel Nüst, Marc Schutzeichel, Markus Konkol (eds). Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1485437