Reproducibility badge

Greg Wilson points out in his badge of reproducibility post a couple things I missed in my previous post announcing the signal processing article.

The first is the reproducible research badge, the green check mark logo on the preprint site. I don’t know who owns that or what their rules are. Perhaps it belongs to EPFL.

The other is the user evaluation form. Users can select one of the following four options:

  1. I have tested this code and it works
  2. I have tested this code and it does not work (on my computer)
  3. I have tested this code and was able to reproduce the results from the paper
  4. I have tested this code and was unable to reproduce the results from the paper

That is huge. You cannot say whether your own research is reproducible. It’s reproducible when someone else can reproduce it.

2 thoughts on “Reproducibility badge

  1. Pingback: Our reproducible research paper at Pixeltje Blog

  2. Vivora

    Stan: If microarray data pre-2010 is ularnieble, then does that mean like 10+ of nearly wasted years? Can you give an update on this situation? Have the recommendations in the linked article been followed? The ending is worth noting: The bottom line is we need to stop the inefficient usage of taxpayer money inherent in running large-scale genetic studies without proper DOE [design of experiments]. Perhaps it is time for the NIH to set forth policy on this before further money is wasted. Perhaps grant reviewers should insist on experts in experimental design being involved before the experiments are run. It most certainly is time for every field that calls itself a science to devote teaching time to the theory and extensive hands-on practice of design of experiments. And then my head will not explode!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *