ArticleF1000Research2021
CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.
Article in F1000Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photoreceptor-specific scene statistics reveal melanopic structure in natural environments.iScience · 2026Article
- TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Quality in Question: Assessing the Accuracy of Four Heart Rate Wearables and the Implications for Psychophysiological Research.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Sample size estimation for task-related functional MRI studies using Bayesian updating.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- Open Science at the generative AI turn: An exploratory analysis of challenges and opportunities.Quantitative science studies · 2025Article
- Extent of Open Science Practices in the Reporting of Real World Evidence Research.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Correction: Power analysis for personal light exposure measurements and interventions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- An inventory of human light exposure behaviour.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2023Article
- A workflow reproducibility scale for automatic validation of biological interpretation results.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Responsible handling of ethics in data publication.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- The role of metadata in reproducible computational research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research. To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.
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.