IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0080278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying Reproducibility in Computational Biology: The Case of the Tuberculosis Drugome

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Garijo
  • Sarah Kinnings
  • Li Xie
  • Lei Xie
  • Yinliang Zhang
  • Philip E Bourne
  • Yolanda Gil

Abstract

How easy is it to reproduce the results found in a typical computational biology paper? Either through experience or intuition the reader will already know that the answer is with difficulty or not at all. In this paper we attempt to quantify this difficulty by reproducing a previously published paper for different classes of users (ranging from users with little expertise to domain experts) and suggest ways in which the situation might be improved. Quantification is achieved by estimating the time required to reproduce each of the steps in the method described in the original paper and make them part of an explicit workflow that reproduces the original results. Reproducing the method took several months of effort, and required using new versions and new software that posed challenges to reconstructing and validating the results. The quantification leads to “reproducibility maps” that reveal that novice researchers would only be able to reproduce a few of the steps in the method, and that only expert researchers with advance knowledge of the domain would be able to reproduce the method in its entirety. The workflow itself is published as an online resource together with supporting software and data. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the complexities of requiring reproducibility in terms of cost versus benefit, and a desiderata with our observations and guidelines for improving reproducibility. This has implications not only in reproducing the work of others from published papers, but reproducing work from one’s own laboratory.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Garijo & Sarah Kinnings & Li Xie & Lei Xie & Yinliang Zhang & Philip E Bourne & Yolanda Gil, 2013. "Quantifying Reproducibility in Computational Biology: The Case of the Tuberculosis Drugome," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0080278
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080278
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080278&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0080278?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip E Bourne, 2010. "What Do I Want from the Publisher of the Future?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-3, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher Mohr & Andreas Friedrich & David Wojnar & Erhan Kenar & Aydin Can Polatkan & Marius Cosmin Codrea & Stefan Czemmel & Oliver Kohlbacher & Sven Nahnsen, 2018. "qPortal: A platform for data-driven biomedical research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P Douglas Renfrew & Gabrielle Campbell & Charlie E M Strauss & Richard Bonneau, 2011. "The 2010 Rosetta Developers Meeting: Macromolecular Prediction and Design Meets Reproducible Publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-5, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0080278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.