Ciencia reproducible: qué, por qué, cómo

Rodriguez-Sanchez, F., Perez-Luque, A.J. Bartomeus, I., Varela, S. 2016. Reproducible science: what, why, how. Ecosistemas 25(2): 83-92. Doi.: 10.7818/ECOS.2016.25-2.11 Most scientific papers are not reproducible: it is really hard, if not impossible, to understand how results are derived from data, and being able to regenerate them in the future (even by the same researchers). However, traceability and reproducibility of results are indispensable elements of high-quality science, and an increasing requirement of many journals and funding sources. Reproducible studies include code able to regenerate results from the original data. This practice not only provides a perfect record of the whole analysis but also reduces the probability of errors and facilitates code reuse, thus accelerating scientific progress. But doing reproducible science also brings many benefits to the individual researcher, including saving time and effort, improved collaborations, and higher quality and impact of final publications. In this article we introduce reproducible science, why it is important, and how we can improve the reproducibility of our work. We introduce principles and tools for data management, analysis, version control, and software management that help us achieve reproducible workflows in the context of ecology.

[1]  William K. Michener,et al.  Ten Simple Rules for Creating a Good Data Management Plan , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[2]  Journals unite for reproducibility , 2014, Nature.

[3]  Kristin Vanderbilt,et al.  Completing the data life cycle: using information management in macrosystems ecology research , 2014 .

[4]  W. Christopher Lenhardt,et al.  The Tao of open science for ecology , 2015 .

[5]  Carl Boettiger,et al.  An introduction to Docker for reproducible research , 2014, OPSR.

[6]  John D. Blischak,et al.  A Quick Introduction to Version Control with Git and GitHub , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  V. Stodden,et al.  Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals , 2013, PloS one.

[8]  Heather A. Piwowar,et al.  Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate , 2007, PloS one.

[9]  S. Goring,et al.  Pollen assemblage richness does not reflect regional plant species richness: a cautionary tale , 2013 .

[10]  Matthew W. Pennell,et al.  How much of the world is woody? , 2014 .

[11]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Quantifying Reproducibility in Computational Biology: The Case of the Tuberculosis Drugome , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Self-correction in science at work , 2015, Science.

[13]  Gabriel Becker,et al.  Enhancing reproducibility and collaboration via management of R package cohorts , 2015 .

[14]  Matthew Jones,et al.  Maximizing the Value of Ecological Data with Structured Metadata: An Introduction to Ecological Metadata Language (EML) and Principles for Metadata Creation , 2005 .

[15]  Karthik Ram,et al.  Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science , 2013, Source Code for Biology and Medicine.

[16]  Florence Debarre,et al.  The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age , 2013, Current Biology.

[17]  Limare Nicolas,et al.  Reproducible Research in Computational Science — Santiago 2013-04-15 , 2013 .

[18]  François Michonneau,et al.  Ten Simple Rules for Digital Data Storage , 2016, PeerJ Prepr..

[19]  William K. Michener,et al.  NONGEOSPATIAL METADATA FOR THE ECOLOGICAL SCIENCES , 1997 .

[20]  Darrel C. Ince,et al.  The case for open computer programs , 2012, Nature.