ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2019
Making simulation results reproducible-Survey, guidelines, and examples based on Gradle and Docker.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early Prediction of Sepsis in the ICU Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Distillation Style Regulators and Semantic Prior-Guided Framework for Non-Ideal Single-View 3D Vehicle Point Cloud Reconstruction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Integrating high-performance computing, machine learning, data management workflows, and infrastructures for multiscale simulations and nanomaterials technologies.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article addresses two research questions related to reproducibility within the context of research related to computer science. First, a survey on reproducibility addressed to researchers in the academic and private sectors is described and evaluated. The survey indicates a strong need for open and easily accessible results, in particular, reproducing an experiment should not require too much effort. The results of the survey are then used to formulate guidelines for making research results reproducible. In addition, this article explores four approaches based on software tools that could bring forward reproducibility in research results. After a general analysis of tools, three examples are further investigated based on actual research projects which are used to evaluate previously introduced tools. Results indicate that the evaluated tools contribute well to making simulation results reproducible but due to conflicting requirements, none of the presented solutions fulfills all intended goals perfectly.
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.