Re: A guide to reproducible research papers

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr>]

Ciao Giovanni,

Giovanni Biscuolo <giovanni@biscuolo.net> skribis:

> You mentioned this citation from Jon Claerbout:
>
>  Published documents are merely the advertisement of scholarship whereas
>  the computer programs, input data, parameter values, etc. embody the
>  scholarship itself.
>
> and I was very curious about the source: I found that's a citation from
> the abstract of «Making scientc computations reproducible» (Matthias
> Schwab , Martin Karrenbach, Jon Claerbout, Published 2000) [1]

Right, I found this one but couldn’t find precisely the original source
(I spent quite a while looking for it and eventually gave up).

> Nevertheless, the first occurrence of a similar statement by Jon
> Claerbout is in a talk named «Seventeen years of super computing and
> other problems in seismology» dated Oct 2 1994, precisely in the section
> about "Technology transfer and research reproducibility" [2]
>
>
> In engineering, a published paper is an advertisement of scholarship but
> the electronic document can be the scholarship itself. Forty years ago
> data were "pencil marks on paper" and theory was some Greek
> symbols. Then paper documents were adequate. No more. Now we need
> electronic documents.
>
> Just to add a little bit of history of computational reproducibility of
> research.

[...]

> [2] https://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/nrc.html#Technology%20transfer%20and%20research%20reproducibility

Excellent, thank you for sharing!

The takeaway here is that there’s nothing new: we’re probably going
further in implementing these ideas and adapting them to current
practices, but the core issue was already well documented 25+ years ago.

Ludo’.