Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38167858›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

rworkflows: automating reproducible practices for the R community.

Brian M Schilder, Alan E Murphy, Nathan G Skene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brian M SchilderDepartment of Brain Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, UK. brian_schilder@alumni.brown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5949-2191
Alan E MurphyDepartment of Brain Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2487-8753
Nathan G SkeneDepartment of Brain Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, UK. n.skene@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6807-3180

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID38167858
PMCPMC10761765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.