The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Making scientific computations reproducible
Abstract
To verify a research paper's computational results, readers typically have to recreate them from scratch. ReDoc is a simple software filing system for authors that lets readers easily reproduce computational results using standardized rules and commands.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Reproducible research in computational science
Peng, R. D. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1213847 · Cited by 1,449
Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research
Sandve, G. K., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J., & Hovig, E. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 · Cited by 880
Towards reproducible computational drug discovery
Schaduangrat, N., Lampa, S., Simeon, S., Gleeson, M. P., Spjuth, O., & Nantasenamat, C. (2020) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/s13321-020-0408-x · Cited by 208
Marwick, B. (2017) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9 · Cited by 179
Multi-area visuotopic map complexes in macaque striate and extra-striate cortex
Polimeni, J. R., Balasubramanian, M., & Schwartz, E. L. (2006) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.006 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwab, M., Karrenbach, N., & Claerbout, J.
- Venue
- Computing in Science & Engineering
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 61-67
- ISSN
- 1521-9615 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2142188478
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making scientific computations reproducible. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/5992.881708
- The paper
- Schwab, M., Karrenbach, N., & Claerbout, J. (2000). Making scientific computations reproducible. Computing in Science & Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/5992.881708
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
