↓ Skip to main content

Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility

Overview of attention for article published in Giga Science, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
58 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility
Published in
Giga Science, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13742-016-0135-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen R. Piccolo, Michael B. Frampton

Abstract

When reporting research findings, scientists document the steps they followed so that others can verify and build upon the research. When those steps have been described in sufficient detail that others can retrace the steps and obtain similar results, the research is said to be reproducible. Computers play a vital role in many research disciplines and present both opportunities and challenges for reproducibility. Computers can be programmed to execute analysis tasks, and those programs can be repeated and shared with others. The deterministic nature of most computer programs means that the same analysis tasks, applied to the same data, will often produce the same outputs. However, in practice, computational findings often cannot be reproduced because of complexities in how software is packaged, installed, and executed-and because of limitations associated with how scientists document analysis steps. Many tools and techniques are available to help overcome these challenges; here we describe seven such strategies. With a broad scientific audience in mind, we describe the strengths and limitations of each approach, as well as the circumstances under which each might be applied. No single strategy is sufficient for every scenario; thus we emphasize that it is often useful to combine approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 3%
United States 4 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 270 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 67 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 22%
Student > Master 36 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Other 16 5%
Other 51 17%
Unknown 37 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 22%
Computer Science 50 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 13%
Engineering 19 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Other 55 19%
Unknown 51 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,009,089
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#152
of 1,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,201
of 370,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.