📄 Statistical code for #ClinicalResearch papers in a high-impact specialist #medical journal
Interesting #paper on the availability of #statistical #code in European Urology papers. And a checklist to get us all thinking about how good the code we share is.
thanks for finding and posting it first @MarkKelson
Thanks, I believe this really sheds light on the rush to publish as soon as you get results. Unfortunately often those results are not reproducible due to how the code is written, which is often specific to the machine of the researcher.
I admit I'm also guilty of this, trying to become better and placing more care in the code.
If I get 10 guesses for criteria to assess code quality, I don't think I would guess 1 out of those 3 criteria, tops.
I understand the code quality standards out of the software community may be low, but precisely for that reason it's scary to see code quality evaluated in terms of extensive annotations, no repetition and markup for formatting. People may start thinking that's what they should do... 🤔
MarkKelson
in reply to Open Science ✅ • • •MarkKelson
in reply to MarkKelson • • •Open Science ✅
in reply to MarkKelson • • •rastinza
in reply to Open Science ✅ • • •Unfortunately often those results are not reproducible due to how the code is written, which is often specific to the machine of the researcher.
I admit I'm also guilty of this, trying to become better and placing more care in the code.
pepellou $:idle:
in reply to Open Science ✅ • • •I understand the code quality standards out of the software community may be low, but precisely for that reason it's scary to see code quality evaluated in terms of extensive annotations, no repetition and markup for formatting. People may start thinking that's what they should do... 🤔