[This article was first published on Mad (Data) Scientist, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
On May 31, I made a post here about our R package revisit, which is designed to help remedy the reproducibility crisis in science. The intended user audience includes
- reviewers of research manuscripts submitted for publication,
- scientists who wish to confirm the results in a published paper, and explore alternate analyses, and
- members of the original research team itself, while collaborating during the course of the research.
The package is documented mainly in the README file, but we now also have a paper on arXiv.org, which explains the reproducibility crisis in detail, and how our package addresses it. Reed Davis and I, the authors of the software, are joined in the paper by Prof. Laurel Beckett of the UC Davis Medical School, and Dr. Paul Thompson of Sanford Research.
To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: Mad (Data) Scientist.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.