How do you review a paper (in its second revision) where the authors have made an honest attempt to make their analysis (computationally) reproducible, but not quite got there? Given that the field is #archaeology, where reproducibility is still a niche concern and lots of work is published with no regard to it.
@joeroe reproducibility in archeology sounds like "if you dig a hole at your location, with the same dimensions, using an Acme 17 spade, starting on a Tuesday, you should encounter the paleolithic skeletons on the 3rd Friday following"
@johnefrancis Well, there's a lot to say about how the concept does and doesn't translate in the palaeosciences, but in this case I'm talking about computational reproducibility.
Add comment