Skip to content

grammar fixes #8

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
26 changes: 13 additions & 13 deletions 02-motivation.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
Motivation for replication
===============================================================================

It has been said many times by many authors in the litterature that
It has been said many times by many authors in the literature that
reproducibility is the cornerstone of Science and we, as a scientific
community, should aim at such reproducibility. However, good intention are not
sufficient and a given computational results can be declared reproducible if
community, should aim at such reproducibility. However, good intentions are not
sufficient and a given computational result can be declared reproducible if
and only if it has been actually replicated in a the sense of a brand new
open-source and documented implementation. As explained before, writing such
replication might be a daunting taks that is not really rewarded and we may
thus wondered what could be the motivation for doing so ? Such motivations are
indeed diverse and range from the simple student who want to train oneself in
order to get familiar with a specific scientific domain up to the senior
researcher that has a critical need of a specific piece of code:
open-source and documented implementation. As explained before, writing such a
replication might be a daunting task that is not really rewarded and we may
thus wonder what could be the motivation for doing so? Such motivations are
indeed diverse and range from simple students who want to train themselves in
order to get familiar with a specific scientific domain, up to senior
researchers that have a critical need of a specific piece of code. For example:

**@stachelek:2016**: I was motivated to replicate the results of the original
paper because I feel that working through code supplements to blog posts has
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -52,16 +52,16 @@ parameterized to really work. Without any place to publish it, this
knowledge is wasted. Publishing it in ReScience, opening the discussion
publicly, will be a progress for all of us.

ReScience already published 4 articles and as shown above, the original
motivations of these authors are all different and this might become even more
ReScience has already published four articles and, as shown above, the original
motivations of these authors are all different. This might become even more
obvious and diverse with future publications. But, beyond these motivations,
publishing in ReScience may be especially important for students since this
represent a unique opportunity to show the community a given student is able to
represents a unique opportunity to show the community a given student is able to
read a scientific article, to have a deep understanding of it, to write a new
implementation and to eventually write a scientific article describing his/her
work. Although the ReScience publishing model is a bit different from other
academic journals, it can give students a first experience at peer-reviewed
scholarly publishing, including meeting standards of scientific rigor and
scholarly publishing, including meeting standards of scientific rigour and
addressing reviewers' comments. Furthermore, publishing in ReScience is a way
to actively contribute to open science while adding to one's publication
record.
Expand Down