One of the first articles with means for complete validation by reproducibility

I have not stressed enough this aspect. The article

M. Buliga, Molecular computers

is one of the first articles which comes with complete means of validation by reproducibility.

This means that along with the content of the article, which contains animations and links to demonstrations, comes a github repository with the scripts which can be used to validate (or invalidate, of course) this work.

I can’t show you here how the article looks like, but I can show you a gif created from this  video of a demonstration which appears also in the article (however, with simpler settings, in order to not punish too much the browser).

KebzRb

This is a chemical like computation of the Ackermann(2,2) function.

In itself, is intended to show that if autonomous computing molecules can be created by the means proposed in the article, then impressive feats can be achieved.

This is part of the discussion about peer review and the need to pass to a more evolved way of communicating science.There are several efforts in this direction, like for example PeerJ’s paper-now commented in this post. See also the post Fascinating: micropublications, hypothes.is for more!

Presently one of the most important pieces of this is the peer review, which is the social practice consisting in declarations of one, two, four, etc anonymous professionals that they have checked the work and they consider it valid.

Instead, an ideal should be the article which runs in the browser, i.e. one which comes with means which would allow anybody to validate it up to external resources, like the works by other authors.

(For example, if I write in my article that “According to the work [1]   A is true. Here we prove that B follows from A.” then I should provide means to validate the proof that A implies B, but it would be unrealistical to be ask me to provide means to validate A.)

This is explained in more detail in Reproducibility vs peer review.

Therefore, if you care about evolving the form of the scientific article, then you have a concrete, short example of what can be done in this direction.

Mind that I am stubborn enough to cling to this form of publication, not because I am afraid to submit these beautiful ideas to legacy journals, but because I want to promote new ways of sharing research by using the best content I can make.

_________________________________________

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “One of the first articles with means for complete validation by reproducibility”

    1. Thank you! We should make a community and share opinions and experiments with this. It is simpler to achieve this sort of reproducibility than it is for chemists, say.

      1. Yes. The challenge is to find good practices that would gain traction in a research community. I had hopes with the Selected Papers Network, but this did not work. I also tried the experiment of posting a review article on GitHub in addition to Arxiv, but so far there were no substantial contributions from others. My next experiment will be to post on my blog (parts of) the reviewer reports that I write for journals. But I do not expect this to change the world.

        (For some reason I could not log in via Google+ for this comment.)

      2. I believe in the power of example. Let’s just do it, be vocal and see what happens. Nobody else would do that for us. Btw, today I saw this paper now article.
        Personally, the only problem I see is to find financing for the projects I work on. There have to be reasonable people, willing to fund research, who are sensible to the idea of giving their money to validated research, instead of giving them to hear-say, unaccountable peer reviewed work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s