ArticleScientific data2019
Assessing data availability and research reproducibility in hydrology and water resources.
Article in Scientific data, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- More efficient reproducible research in hydrology: moving research down the academic career scale (MRDTACS).Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- CaRDS - the statewide California Residential water Demand and Supply open dataset.Scientific data · 2024Article
- PatagoniaMet: A multi-source hydrometeorological dataset for Western Patagonia.Scientific data · 2024Article
- EBRAINS Live Papers - Interactive Resource Sheets for Computational Studies in Neuroscience.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- The role of metadata in reproducible computational research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
- Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Publishing computational research - a review of infrastructures for reproducible and transparent scholarly communication.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is broad interest to improve the reproducibility of published research. We developed a survey tool to assess the availability of digital research artifacts published alongside peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g. data, models, code, directions for use) and reproducibility of article results. We used the tool to assess 360 of the 1,989 articles published by six hydrology and water resources journals in 2017. Like studies from other fields, we reproduced results for only a small fraction of articles (1.6% of tested articles) using their available artifacts. We estimated, with 95% confidence, that results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of all 1,989 articles. Unlike prior studies, the survey tool identified key bottlenecks to making work more reproducible. Bottlenecks include: only some digital artifacts available (44% of articles), no directions (89%), or all artifacts available but results not reproducible (5%). The tool (or extensions) can help authors, journals, funders, and institutions to self-assess manuscripts, provide feedback to improve reproducibility, and recognize and reward reproducible articles as examples for others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.