The results in Table 1 don’t seem to correspond to those in Figure 2

For data analysis to be reproducible, the data and code should be assembled in a way such that results (e.g. tables and figures) can be re-created. While the scientific community is by and large in agreement that reproducibility is a minimal standard by which data analyses should be evaluated, and a myriad of software tools for reproducible computing exist, it is still not trivial to reproduce someone's (sometimes your own!) results without fiddling with unavailable analysis data, external dependencies, missing packages, out of date software, etc. In this talk, we present good, better, and best workflows for reproducibility that touch on everything from data storage, cleaning, analysis, to communication of final results.

Supplementary materials for the talk can be found at http://bit.ly/tab1-fig2.

Transcript

1. The results in Table 1 don’t seem to correspond to those in Figure 2 Mine Çetinkaya-Rundel Duke University + RStudio mine-cetinkaya-rundel cetinkaya.mine@gmail.com @minebocek rstd.io/dt19-repro
2. The results in Table 1 don’t seem to correspond to those in Figure 2!
3. 61 3 44 94 12 4 45 20
4. 70 have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments more than percent Baker, Monya. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility." Nature News 533.7604 (2016): 452.
5. 50 have tried and failed to reproduce their own experiments more than percent Baker, Monya. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility." Nature News 533.7604 (2016): 452.
6. 152 Google Scholar Search, March 13, 2019. results containing the term reproducibility crisis just in 2019 Google Scholar yields
7. 1992 Claerbout, Jon F., and Martin Karrenbach. "Electronic documents give reproducible research a new meaning." SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1992. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1992. 601-604. earliest reference reproducibility research* that I could find…
8. Claerbout, Jon F., and Martin Karrenbach. "Electronic documents give reproducible research a new meaning." SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1992. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1992. 601-604.
9. Claerbout, Jon F., and Martin Karrenbach. "Electronic documents give reproducible research a new meaning." SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1992. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1992. 601-604.
10. Lewis, L. Michelle, et al. "Replication Study: Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc." Elife 7 (2018): e30274.
11. Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash]. setting the stage
12. replicability reproducibility same research question same research question same results same results new data same data
13. Term Estimate Std. Error Statistic p-value (Intercept) 9.06 0.929 9.76 1.13e-17 Sepal.Width -1.74 0.301 -5.77 4.51e- 8 Table 1. Regression output for predicting petal length from sepal width. Figure 2. Relationship between petal length and sepal width e.g.
14. Term Estimate Std. Error Statistic p-value (Intercept) 9.06 0.929 9.76 1.13e-17 Sepal.Width -1.74 0.301 -5.77 4.51e- 8 Table 1. Regression output for predicting petal length from sepal width. Figure 2. Relationship between petal length and sepal width e.g.
15. analysis report Term Estimate Std. Error Statistic p-value (Intercept) 9.06 0.929 9.76 1.13e-17 Sepal.Width -1.74 0.301 -5.77 4.51e- 8 Table 1. Regression output for predicting petal length from sepal width.
16. analysis report Term Estimate Std. Error Statistic p-value (Intercept) 9.06 0.929 9.76 1.13e-17 Sepal.Width -1.74 0.301 -5.77 4.51e- 8 Table 1. Regression output for predicting petal length from sepal width. Figure 2. Relationship between petal length and sepal width
17. analysis report Term Estimate Std. Error Statistic p-value (Intercept) 9.06 0.929 9.76 1.13e-17 Sepal.Width -1.74 0.301 -5.77 4.51e- 8 Table 1. Regression output for predicting petal length from sepal width. Figure 2. Relationship between petal length and sepal width
18. Term Estimate Std. Error Statistic p-value (Intercept) 9.06 0.929 9.76 1.13e-17 Sepal.Width -1.74 0.301 -5.77 4.51e- 8 Table 1. Regression output for predicting petal length from sepal width. Figure 2. Relationship between petal length and sepal width
19. making research reproducible
20. – David Donoho, paraphrasing Jon Claerbout “An article about computational science in a scientific publication is not the scholarship itself, it is merely advertising of the scholarship. The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment and the complete set of instructions which generated the figures.” Buckheit, Jonathan B., and David L. Donoho. "Wavelab and reproducible research." Wavelets and statistics. Springer, New York, NY, 1995. 55-81.
21. raw data code & documentation to reproduce the analysis specifications of your computational environment make available and accessible Peng, Roger. "The reproducibility crisis in science: A statistical counterattack." Significance 12.3 (2015): 30-32. Gentleman, Robert, and Duncan Temple Lang. "Statistical analyses and reproducible research." Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16.1 (2007): 1-23.
22. – Keith Baggerly “The most important tool is the mindset, when starting, that the end product will be reproducible.”
23. nobody, not even yourself, can recreate any part of your analysis push button reproducibility in published work
24. “There’s no one-size-fits-all solution for computational reproducibility.” Perkel, Jeffrey M. "A toolkit for data transparency takes shape." Nature 560 (2018): 513-515.
25. but the following might help…
26. organize your project 1
27. level of organization
28. simpler analysis raw-data processed-data manuscript "|- manuscript.Rmd more complex analysis raw-data processed-data scripts manuscript figures "|- manuscript.Rmd stick with the conventions of your peers
29. keep data tidy & machine readable 2
30. Student Exam Grade Name 1 2 Major Barney Donaldson 89 76 Data Science, Public Policy Clay Whelan 67 83 Public Policy Simran Bass 82 90 Statistics Chante Munro 45 72 Political Science, Statistics Gabrielle Cherry 32 79 . Kush Piper 98 sick Statistics Faizan Ratliff 82 75 Data Science Torin Ruiz 70 80 Sociology, Statistics Reiss Richardson missed exam 34 Neuroscience Ajwa Cochran 50 65 Data Science Low participation name exam_1 exam_2 first_major second_major participation Barney Donaldson 89 76 Data Science Public Policy ok Clay Whelan 67 83 Public Policy NA ok Simran Bass 82 90 Statistics NA ok Chante Munro 45 72 Political Science Statistics Low Gabrielle Cherry 32 79 NA NA ok Kush Piper 98 NA Statistics NA ok Faizan Ratliff 82 75 Data Science NA ok Torin Ruiz 70 80 Sociology Statistics ok Reiss Richardson NA 34 Neuroscience NA low Ajwa Cochran 50 65 Data Science NA low record code + document non-code steps + write tests Broman, Karl W., and Kara H. Woo. "Data organization in spreadsheets." The American Statistician 72.1 (2018): 2-10.
31. comment your code 3
33. use READMEs liberally 4
34. use literate programming 5
38. automate your process 6
39. use version control 7
40. share computing environment 8
41. Greg Wilson, Jennifer Bryan, Karen Cranston, Justin Kitzes, Lex Nederbragt, Tracy K. Teal “Good enough practices in scientific computing." PLoS computational biology 13.6 (2017): e1005510.
42. looking into the future Photo by Sweet Ice Cream Photography on Unsplash.
43. – Keith Baggerly “The most important tool is the mindset, when starting, that the end product will be reproducible.”
44. – Karl Broman “The second most important tool is training.”
45. #1: Convince data scientists to adopt a reproducible data analysis workflow #2: Train new data scientists who don’t have any other workflow
46. statistics and data science educators who teach data analysis should be instilling best practices in students before they set out to do research
47. → → → →
48. → → → → → →
49. The results in Table 1 don’t seem to correspond to those in Figure 2 Mine Çetinkaya-Rundel Duke University + RStudio mine-cetinkaya-rundel cetinkaya.mine@gmail.com @minebocek rstd.io/dt19-repro