The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reproducible Research in Computational Science
Open accessAbstract
Computational science has led to exciting new developments, but the nature of the work has exposed limitations in our ability to evaluate published findings. Reproducibility has the potential to serve as a minimum standard for judging scientific claims when full independent replication of a study is not possible.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The difficulty in auditing spreadsheets makes them generally incompatible with the principles of computational reproducibility [5].”
From Gene name errors: Lessons not learned (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The rough consensus reduces to three ingredients.”
From Designing reproducible large-language-model-assisted scientific analyses (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“We develop a two-step attribution process which combines a transparent and reproducible 39,40 machine learning approach to identifying studies on observed climate impacts with model-based assessments of detectable anthropogenic contributions to historical temperature and precipitation trends.”
From Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
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
Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Allison, D. B., Ball, C. A., Coulibaly, I., Cui, X., Culhane, A. C., Falchi, M., Furlanello, C., Game, L., Jurman, G., et al. (2009) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.295 · Cited by 551
King, G. (1995) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096500057607 · Cited by 473
Publish your computer code: it is good enough
Barnes, N. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/467753a · Cited by 317
Accessible Reproducible Research
Mesirov, J. P. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1179653 · Cited by 311
Reproducible Epidemiologic Research
Peng, R. D., Dominici, F., & Zeger, S. L. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj093 · Cited by 292
Self-citationReproducible research and Biostatistics
Peng, R. D. (2009) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxp014 · Cited by 245
Self-citationMaking scientific computations reproducible
Schwab, M., Karrenbach, N., & Claerbout, J. F. (2000) · Computing in Science & Engineering · doi:10.1109/5992.881708 · Cited by 232
Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust
Laine, C., Goodman, S. N., Griswold, M. E., & Sox, H. C. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-6-200703200-00154 · Cited by 213
Making Data Maximally Available
Hanson, B., Sugden, A. M., & Alberts, B. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1203354 · Cited by 172
King, G. (1995) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.2307/420301 · Cited by 145
Do economics journal archives promote replicable research?
McCullough, B. D., McGeary, K. A., & Harrison, T. D. (2008) · Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.00509.x · Cited by 140
Geographic Information Systems
Chen, J. X. (2010) · Computing in Science & Engineering · doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.13 · Cited by 27
High-Impact Astronomical Observatories
Madrid, J. P., & Macchetto, D. (2009) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0901.4552
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Yale Law School Roundtable on Data and Code Sharing, Comput. Sci. Eng. 12, 8 (2010).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data
McMurdie, P. J., & Holmes, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 · Cited by 21,942
Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine
Lambin, P., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Deist, T. M., Peerlings, J., de Jong, E. E. C., van Timmeren, J., Sanduleanu, S., Larue, R. T. H. M., Even, A. J. G., Jochems, A., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 · Cited by 5,688
Waste Not, Want Not: Why Rarefying Microbiome Data Is Inadmissible
McMurdie, P. J., & Holmes, S. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003531 · Cited by 3,034
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8 · Cited by 1,597
Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research
Begley, C. G., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.114.303819 · Cited by 1,035
Metadata
- Authors
- Peng, R. D.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Peng, Roger D.
- ORCID
- Peng, Roger D.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2011-12-02
- Volume
- 334
- Issue
- 6060
- Pages
- 1226-1227
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- PMC
- PMC3383002
- OpenAlex
- W2008985174
- Semantic Scholar
- e4625641d1072542315c14083befb43cd7096aba
- Cited by
- 1,449
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 162 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 139 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 138 · 2017: 113 · 2016: 106 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 98.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES019560)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- reproducible research, scientific computing, reproducibility, scientific claims, replication
- MeSH terms
- Computers, Publishing, Research, Reproducibility of Results, Computational Biology, Editorial Policies, Biomedical Research, Biostatistics
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
