Sharing data and code facilitates reproducible and impactful research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern research often involves the collection or analysis of data and the use of specialized computer algorithms. Traditional text articles thus provide only partial documentation of a research study. Readers have limited ability to reproduce or utilize work if the source data are not available or if it relies on an algorithm that is described, but code is not provided. Fortunately, a wide variety of tools are now available to support the publication of research data and code. The effort required to publish data is now relatively small, and the benefits can be immense. This opinion article discusses trends toward increased sharing in academic publishing. It describes opportunities and resources to support data and code sharing and describes the benefits for both authors and readers. Finally, it discusses how Earthquake Spectra is providing resources and enhancing its policies to establish the sharing of data as the default procedure when publishing in the journal, and encourage the sharing of code and other resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.393 | 0.695 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.040 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".