I love this wonderful paper and interview, and the OHI is a great
inspiration for me, I recommend it to everyone.
We now seem to have an emerging genre of scholarly papers spanning a
variety of disciplines that describe this way of working. I think this
is great, a big win for the influence of the ideals and practices of
SWC, and an important step towards improving research reproducibility
and openness.
I would like to propose we raise the bar a bit for future papers in this
genre, especially about claims of 'less time' and 'saving time'. So far
as I'm aware, most of these claims are qualitative, and not based on
objective measurements of time. A challenge for future papers in this
genre is to include some measurements of how much time is saved.
I believe that these claims of saved time are probably true, but I'd
love to have something more robust to show my skeptical students and
colleagues, who often ask me about this (and don't find reproducibility
to be sufficient motivation). Wouldn't it be great to see some actual
numbers on how much time is saved using reproducible workflows and open
source tools?
Are there any compelling studies already published on this?
BM
On 24/05/2017 7:56 AM, Julia Stewart Lowndes wrote:
Hi All,
I wanted to share our Perspective article that was published yesterday
in /Nature Ecology & Evolution. /My experience as a learner and
instructor with Software Carpentry definitely played a role in writing
this paper, and we cite the Carpentries throughout the
article. /Nature /also did a Q&A with me that gives a quick overview of
the paper.
Lowndes JSS, Best BD, Scarborough C, Afflerbach JC, Frazier MR,
O’Hara CC, Jiang N, Halpern BS (2017). Our path to better science in
less time using open data science tools. /Nature Ecology &
Evolution/, 1 Article number:
0160. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0160
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0160>
<http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/05/23/techblog-julia-stewart-lowndes>Perkel,
J. 2017. TechBlog: My digital toolbox: Julia Stewart
Lowndes, /Nature./
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/05/23/techblog-julia-stewart-lowndes
<http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/05/23/techblog-julia-stewart-lowndes>
We’ve also made a website using the tools that we describe in the
paper: ohi-science.org/betterscienceinlesstime
<http://ohi-science.org/betterscienceinlesstime>. We have resources
there and I’ll keep a list of any media attention, including a Q&A I did
with /Nature/ that should be coming out later today.
We are also tweeting about it from @ohiscience
<https://twitter.com/OHIscience> and @juliesquid
<https://twitter.com/juliesquid>.
Cheers,
Julie et al.
*Abstract: *
Reproducibility has long been a tenet of science but has been
challenging to achieve—we learned this the hard way when our old
approaches proved inadequate to efficiently reproduce our own work.
Here we describe how several free software tools have fundamentally
upgraded our approach to collaborative research, making our entire
workflow more transparent and streamlined. By describing specific
tools and how we incrementally began using them for the Ocean Health
Index project, we hope to encourage others in the scientific
community to do the same—so we can all produce better science in
less time.
--
Julia Stewart Lowndes, PhD
Ocean Health Index
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)
website <http://jules32.github.io/> • ohi-science
<http://ohi-science.org/>• github <https://github.com/jules32> • twitter
<https://twitter.com/juliesquid>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss
