ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2017
Sustainable computational science: the ReScience initiative.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff: A systematic review.Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2020Pooled it
- A brain-constrained neural model of cognition and language with NEST: transitioning from the Felix framework.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026Article
- NESTML: a generic modeling language and code generation tool for the simulation of spiking neural networks with advanced plasticity rules.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Why experimental variation in neuroimaging should be embraced.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Article
- Replicability of simulation studies for the investigation of statistical methods: the RepliSims project.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Towards reproducible radiomics research: introduction of a database for radiomics studies.European radiology · 2024Article
- A Critical Review of Risk Assessment Models forFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Computational Reproducibility of Molecular Phylogenies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Analysis of Network Models with Neuron-Astrocyte Interactions.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Replication of the natural selection of bad science.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Establishing a national research software award.Open research Europe · 2023Article
- On the Analyses of Medical Images Using Traditional Machine Learning Techniques and Convolutional Neural Networks.Archives of computational methods in engineering : state of the art reviews · 2023Article
- Connectivity concepts in neuronal network modeling.PLoS computational biology · 2022Review
- Mitigating Computer Limitations in Replicating Numerical Simulations of a Neural Network Model With Hodgkin-Huxley-Type Neurons.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- It's time! Ten reasons to start replicating simulation studies.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- A Modular Workflow for Performance Benchmarking of Neuronal Network Simulations.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Neuron-Glia Interactions and Brain Circuits.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Open-source Software Sustainability Models: Initial White Paper From the Informatics Technology for Cancer Research Sustainability and Industry Partnership Working Group.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Inferring Mycobacterium bovis transmission between cattle and badgers using isolates from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
45 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computer science offers a large set of tools for prototyping, writing, running, testing, validating, sharing and reproducing results; however, computational science lags behind. In the best case, authors may provide their source code as a compressed archive and they may feel confident their research is reproducible. But this is not exactly true. James Buckheit and David Donoho proposed more than two decades ago that an article about computational results is advertising, not scholarship. The actual scholarship is the full software environment, code, and data that produced the result. This implies new workflows, in particular in peer-reviews. Existing journals have been slow to adapt: source codes are rarely requested and are hardly ever actually executed to check that they produce the results advertised in the article. ReScience is a peer-reviewed journal that targets computational research and encourages the explicit replication of already published research, promoting new and open-source implementations in order to ensure that the original research can be replicated from its description. To achieve this goal, the whole publishing chain is radically different from other traditional scientific journals. ReScience resides on GitHub where each new implementation of a computational study is made available together with comments, explanations, and software tests.
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.