Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Edward R. Ivimey-Cook; Joel L. Pick; Kevin R. Bairos-Novak; Antica Culina; Elliot Gould; Matthew Grainger; Benjamin M. Marshall; David Moreau; Matthieu Paquet; Raphaël Royauté; Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar; Inês Silva; Saras M. Windecker

doi:10.1111/jeb.14230

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Edward R. Ivimey-Cook^* (Co-auteur), Joel L. Pick, Kevin R. Bairos-Novak, Antica Culina, Elliot Gould, Matthew Grainger, Benjamin M. Marshall, David Moreau, Matthieu Paquet, Raphaël Royauté, Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar, Inês Silva, Saras M. Windecker^* (Co-auteur)

^*Bijbehorende auteur voor dit werk

NIOO - Animal Ecology (AnE)

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan wetenschappelijk tijdschrift/periodieke uitgave › Artikel › Wetenschappelijk › peer review

7 Citaten (Scopus)

Samenvatting

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

Originele taal-2	Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)	1347-1356
Aantal pagina's	10
Tijdschrift	Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Volume	36
Nummer van het tijdschrift	10
DOI's	https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14230
Status	Gepubliceerd - okt. 2023

Toegang tot document

10.1111/jeb.14230Licentie: CC BY

Citeer dit

Ivimey-Cook, E. R., Pick, J. L., Bairos-Novak, K. R., Culina, A., Gould, E., Grainger, M., Marshall, B. M., Moreau, D., Paquet, M., Royauté, R., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Silva, I., & Windecker, S. M. (2023). Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 36(10), 1347-1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14230

@article{133d2790a76449c19acee6ed58961857,

title = "Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology",

abstract = "Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.",

keywords = "coding errors, open science, reliability, reproducibility, research process, software development, transparency",

author = "Ivimey-Cook, {Edward R.} and Pick, {Joel L.} and Bairos-Novak, {Kevin R.} and Antica Culina and Elliot Gould and Matthew Grainger and Marshall, {Benjamin M.} and David Moreau and Matthieu Paquet and Rapha{\"e}l Royaut{\'e} and Alfredo S{\'a}nchez-T{\'o}jar and In{\^e}s Silva and Windecker, {Saras M.}",

note = "Data archiving: no data",

year = "2023",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1111/jeb.14230",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

pages = "1347--1356",

journal = "Journal of Evolutionary Biology",

issn = "1010-061X",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

number = "10",

}

Ivimey-Cook, ER, Pick, JL, Bairos-Novak, KR, Culina, A, Gould, E, Grainger, M, Marshall, BM, Moreau, D, Paquet, M, Royauté, R, Sánchez-Tójar, A, Silva, I & Windecker, SM 2023, 'Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology', Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 36, nr. 10, blz. 1347-1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14230

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology. / Ivimey-Cook, Edward R. (Co-auteur); Pick, Joel L.; Bairos-Novak, Kevin R. et al.
In: Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 36, Nr. 10, 10.2023, blz. 1347-1356.

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan wetenschappelijk tijdschrift/periodieke uitgave › Artikel › Wetenschappelijk › peer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementing code review in the scientific workflow

T2 - Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

AU - Ivimey-Cook, Edward R.

AU - Pick, Joel L.

AU - Bairos-Novak, Kevin R.

AU - Culina, Antica

AU - Gould, Elliot

AU - Grainger, Matthew

AU - Marshall, Benjamin M.

AU - Moreau, David

AU - Paquet, Matthieu

AU - Royauté, Raphaël

AU - Sánchez-Tójar, Alfredo

AU - Silva, Inês

AU - Windecker, Saras M.

N1 - Data archiving: no data

PY - 2023/10

Y1 - 2023/10

N2 - Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

AB - Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

KW - coding errors

KW - open science

KW - reliability

KW - reproducibility

KW - research process

KW - software development

KW - transparency

U2 - 10.1111/jeb.14230

DO - 10.1111/jeb.14230

M3 - Article

C2 - 37812156

AN - SCOPUS:85173363780

SN - 1010-061X

VL - 36

SP - 1347

EP - 1356

JO - Journal of Evolutionary Biology

JF - Journal of Evolutionary Biology

IS - 10

ER -

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Samenvatting

Toegang tot document

Vingerafdruk

Citeer dit