Computational science has led to exciting new developments, but the nature of the work has exposed limitations in our ability to evaluate published findings. Reproducibility has the potential to serve as a minimum standard for judging scientific claims when full independent replication of a study is not possible.
Hanson B., Sugden A., Alberts B., Making data maximally available. Science 331, 649 (2011).
Peng R. D., Dominici F., Zeger S. L., Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163, 783 (2006).
Schwab M., Karrenbach N., Claerbout J., Making scientific computations reproducible. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2, 61 (2000).
Laine C., Goodman S. N., Griswold M. E., Sox H. C., Reproducible research: Moving toward research the public can really trust. Ann. Intern. Med. 146, 450 (2007).
King G., Replication, Replication. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 28, 444 (1995).
R. Gentleman, Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 4, article 2 (2005).
Yale Law School Roundtable on Data and Code Sharing, Comput. Sci. Eng. 12, 8 (2010).
Ioannidis J. P. A., et al., Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nat. Genet. 41, 149 (2009).
Mesirov J. P., Computer science. Accessible reproducible research. Science 327, 415 (2010).
Peng R. D., Reproducible research and biostatistics. Biostatistics 10, 405 (2009).
McCullough B. D., McGeary K. A., Harrison T. D., Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? Can. J. Econ. 41, 1406 (2008).
Barnes N., Publish your computer code: It is good enough. Nature 467, 753 (2010).
Volume 334 | Issue 6060
2 December 2011
2 December 2011
Copyright © 2011, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Published in print: 2 December 2011
Request permissions for this article.
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Download this article as a PDF fileDownload PDF