Opening practice: supporting reproducibility and critical spatial data science

Brunsdon, Chris; Comber, Alexis

doi:10.1007/s10109-020-00334-2

Cited by 74 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper is a reproducible research document (see Brunsdon and Comber 2020); the code and data necessary to reproduce the tables and figures are available in a public repository 1…”

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Trip-making Frequency by Mode during COVID-19

Jamal

Páez

2020

Findings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on mobility in every country and region around the world. Recent studies help to illuminate some of the dimensions of change - however, the evidence is still scant in developing countries. The objective of this paper is to present an exploratory analysis of the changes in the frequency of trip-making by mode during the COVID-19 emergency in Bangladesh. The analysis is based on an online sample conducted during the pandemic, and the results confirm an overall loss of mobility, especially among younger people, in the form of reduced trip-making frequency by all modes. In addition, the results suggest that changes are not uniform across modes, and in particular the loss of mobility was more pronounced for bus, rickshaw, and CNG auto-rickshaw. In contrast, there was some adoption of walking during the pandemic.

show abstract

“…This paper is a reproducible research document (see Brunsdon and Comber 2020); the code and data necessary to reproduce the tables and figures are available in a public repository 1…”

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Trip-making Frequency by Mode during COVID-19

Jamal

Páez

2020

Findings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2020-015 57 Neuroscience Code for a neural network model for human focal seizures was checked after publication as part of publisher collaboration 58 2020-016 59 GIScience Code for models demonstrating the Modifiable Aral Unit Problem (MAUP) in spatial data science 60 was checked during peer review.…”

Section: -012 51 Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility

Nüst

Eglen

2021

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research. To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

show abstract

“…The critical issues in crowdsourced data are centred around their reliability and veracity [41]. The demography of the participants of Scenic-Or-Not is untold, and the reliability of scenic ratings may not be asserted due to the inherent biases concerning participant inequality [4].…”

Section: Limitations and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploratory Analysis of Expert and Nonexpert-Based Land-Scape Aesthetics Evaluations: A Case Study from Wales

Chien

Carver

Comber

2021

Land

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate over the conceptual constructs of landscape aesthetics, specifically whether landscape quality is inherently related to landscape physical characteristics or is subjectively “in the eye of the beholder,” has continued for years. Solutions accommodating both the biophysical and perceptual aspects of landscapes are thus desirable for landscape planners and policymakers. In response to policy shifts that emphasise both expert and public landscape perspectives, this study investigates the relationships between formal and informal landscape evaluations. It analyses crowdsourced data describing landscape aesthetic quality (Scenic-Or-Not) and authoritative landscape quality assessments (the Landscape Assessment Decision Making Process (LANDMAP) of Wales). Some agreement was found regarding landforms most likely to be perceived as scenic or unattractive by experts and non-experts, which aligns with previous landscape perception studies. However, contested landscape typologies are identified formal and informal landscape aesthetic evaluations are compared. Several limitations and implications for current formal landscape assessment paradigms (GIS based and vertical) are discussed and several approaches for capturing on-the-ground perceptions are suggested including recent extensions to GIS derived viewsheds (e.g., vertical voxel viewsheds).

show abstract

Opening practice: supporting reproducibility and critical spatial data science

Cited by 74 publications

References 55 publications

Changes in Trip-making Frequency by Mode during COVID-19

Changes in Trip-making Frequency by Mode during COVID-19

CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility

An Exploratory Analysis of Expert and Nonexpert-Based Land-Scape Aesthetics Evaluations: A Case Study from Wales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About