Category for reproducible/open publications?

[leouieda]

Would it make sense to include a category if repositories that include code and/or data from papers?

[JesperDramsch]

If they're open and awesome, we might be able to sort them into existing categories.

As a bonus we could include a [reproducible] icon. What do you think?

[jiajiasun]

That would be awesome! Ideally, all codes and data should be shared with the community once the paper is published, so that others can build upon them. Lack of reproducible data and code (especially in non-seismic community), in my opinion, is the biggest hurdle for progress. This is especially true for graduate students who usually have to reproduce others' work before they can really get down to their own work.

[EvanBianco]

I see two potential categories here.

1. a collection / compilation of reproducible publications.

2. a collection of recipes and or tutorials. Totally self-contained. A collection of cookbooks.

(A source of inspiration on my bookshelf in my office is a hard-cover compilation book from Popular Mechanics from 1948 entitled, "Forty Power Tools You Can Make")

[leouieda]

@JesperDramsch I wouldn't attach the "reproducible" label until someone else actually reproduces the results, preferably with a different implementation. Publications with open code and data would fall more on the "open science" label.

@jiajiasun nice to see a new professor championing this attitude! Passing on this passion to new students is the way to progress.

[JesperDramsch]

Should we close this for now and possibly revisit this as separate webapp / list / etc?

Papers with codes are becoming more common and might make the list a bit explodey.

[JustinGOSSES]

This is stale and may have been replaced in the SWUNG-JOURNAL discussion in SWUNG SLACK.

Should we close?