HackerPapers

arXiv:2103.12793cs.SE

A large-scale study on research code quality and execution

Ana Trisovic, Matthew K. Lau, Thomas Pasquier, Mercè Crosas

HN submission. Found in a submission link or body. Submitters do not count as commenters in the main ranking; a submission is not an endorsement.

Abstract

This article presents a study on the quality and execution of research code from publicly-available replication datasets at the Harvard Dataverse repository. Research code is typically created by a group of scientists and published together with academic papers to facilitate research transparency and reproducibility. For this study, we define ten questions to address aspects impacting research reproducibility and reuse. First, we retrieve and analyze more than 2000 replication datasets with over 9000 unique R files published from 2010 to 2020. Second, we execute the code in a clean runtime environment to assess its ease of reuse. Common coding errors were identified, and some of them were solved with automatic code cleaning to aid code execution. We find that 74\% of R files crashed in the initial execution, while 56\% crashed when code cleaning was applied, showing that many errors can be prevented with good coding practices. We also analyze the replication datasets from journals' collections and discuss the impact of the journal policy strictness on the code re-execution rate. Finally, based on our results, we propose a set of recommendations for code dissemination aimed at researchers, journals, and repositories.

arXiv comments
30 pages
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.SESoftware Engineering cs.DLDigital Libraries

On Hacker News

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Found in 2 HN submissions from Mar 2021 to Jan 2022. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments0 threads

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Open submission discussions.

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.