![national academies press publications national academies press publications](https://live.staticflickr.com/1401/5146043151_08d4258f18.jpg)
The NASEM report defines reproducibility as “involving the original data and code,” and notes that, “when a researcher transparently reports a study and makes available the underlying digital artifacts, such as data and code, the results should be computationally reproducible.” The TPDS pilot Reproducibility Initiative is exploring how reproducibility of its published research in areas related to parallel and distributed systems can be enabled through ensuring transparency and the availability of potentially reusable code and data. An editor may be able to shape publication standards by establishing requirements, expectations, and best practices, through the coordination of peer review and by implementing initiatives that support publication practices promoting reproducibility. Publishing scientific research involves many stakeholders (editors, associate editors, policymakers, staff, technicians, etc.). The Impact of NASEM Recommendations From an Editor’s Perspective: The TPDS Reproducibility Pilot Specifically, we use our experiences with the ongoing reproducibility pilot for the journal IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems ( TPDS) (Parashar, 2019) (IEEE Computer Society, 2020), which involves badging based on the postpublication peer review of code and other artifacts associated with articles published in TPDS, to explore key opportunities and challenges in implementing the report’s recommendations. In this article, we explore the implications of this report and its recommendations in the publishing sphere.
#NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS PUBLICATIONS HOW TO#
This includes, for example, the author’s perspective (why create reproducible research) and the publisher’s perspective (why ensure the research they publish is reproducible, what are the economic models to sustain the publication of reproducible research and how to successfully transition toward them). Specifically, it notes that “journal editors should consider ways to ensure reproducibility for publications that make claims based on computations, to the extent ethically and legally possible” (p.2), and outlines new opportunities to engage the community and consider avenues for the advancement of reproducibility, in particular, from the incentives perspective. This report provides key insights and recommendations aimed at accelerating community efforts toward establishing reproducibility as a dissemination standard, including those engaged in by publishers. The 2019 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) titled Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (National Academies of Sciences, 2019) defines what it means to reproduce or replicate a study, explores issues related to reproducibility and replicability across science and engineering, and assesses any impact of these issues on the public’s trust in science. The ability to repeat the research that produced published results is a key approach for confirming the validity of a new scientific discovery. Reproducibility is foundational to solid scientific and technical research.