ArticleNature communications2024
rworkflows: automating reproducible practices for the R community.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- CODE beyond FAIR: a roadmap for reusable research software.Scientific data · 2026Article
- MotifPeeker: benchmarking epigenomic profiling methods using motifs.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Ten principles for reliable, efficient, and adaptable coding in psychology and cognitive neuroscience.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Eleven quick tips for writing a Bioconductor package.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite calls to improve reproducibility in research, achieving this goal remains elusive even within computational fields. Currently, >50% of R packages are distributed exclusively through GitHub. While the trend towards sharing open-source software has been revolutionary, GitHub does not have any default built-in checks for minimal coding standards or software usability. This makes it difficult to assess the current quality R packages, or to consistently use them over time and across platforms. While GitHub-native solutions are technically possible, they require considerable time and expertise for each developer to write, implement, and maintain. To address this, we develop rworkflows; a suite of tools to make robust continuous integration and deployment ( https://github.com/neurogenomics/rworkflows ). rworkflows can be implemented by developers of all skill levels using a one-time R function call which has both sensible defaults and extensive options for customisation. Once implemented, any updates to the GitHub repository automatically trigger parallel workflows that install all software dependencies, run code checks, generate a dedicated documentation website, and deploy a publicly accessible containerised environment. By making the rworkflows suite free, automated, and simple to use, we aim to promote widespread adoption of reproducible practices across a continually growing R community.
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.