The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Large-Scale Study About Quality and Reproducibility of Jupyter Notebooks
Abstract
Jupyter Notebooks have been widely adopted by many different communities, both in science and industry. They support the creation of literate programming documents that combine code, text, and execution results with visualizations and all sorts of rich media. The self-documenting aspects and the ability to reproduce results have been touted as significant benefits of notebooks. At the same time, there has been growing criticism that the way notebooks are being used leads to unexpected behavior, encourage poor coding practices, and that their results can be hard to reproduce. To understand good and bad practices used in the development of real notebooks, we studied 1.4 million notebooks from GitHub. We present a detailed analysis of their characteristics that impact reproducibility. We also propose a set of best practices that can improve the rate of reproducibility and discuss open challenges that require further research and development.
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
Cites
Best Practices for Scientific Computing
Wilson, G., Aruliah, D. A., Brown, C. T., Chue Hong, N. P., Davis, M., Guy, R. T., Haddock, S. H. D., Huff, K. D., Mitchell, I. M., Plumbley, M. D., et al. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001745 · Cited by 723
Cited by
Genomic architecture of autism from comprehensive whole-genome sequence annotation
Trost, B., Thiruvahindrapuram, B., Chan, A. J. S., Engchuan, W., Higginbotham, E. J., Howe, J. L., Loureiro, L. O., Reuter, M. S., Roshandel, D., Whitney, J., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.10.009 · Cited by 270
Pitfalls and guidelines for using time-based Git data
Flint, S. W., Chauhan, J., & Dyer, R. (2022) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-022-10200-y · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Pimentel, J. F., Murta, L., Braganholo, V., & Freire, J.
- Venue
- 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-05
- Pages
- 507-517
- OpenAlex
- W2954370766
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 67.15
- Type
- conference paper
- 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: A Large-Scale Study About Quality and Reproducibility of Jupyter Notebooks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/msr.2019.00077
- The paper
- Pimentel, J. F., Murta, L., Braganholo, V., & Freire, J. (2019). A Large-Scale Study About Quality and Reproducibility of Jupyter Notebooks. 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). https://doi.org/10.1109/msr.2019.00077
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.
