Johnbosco
@biocodebreaker.bsky.social
Bioinformatician | Cancer Omics | Health informatics | FAIR Principles | Reproducible Research
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2355-8475
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2355-8475
I'm so glad you provided the code used to produce the Figures. Most repositories don't include code for reproducing the Figures. Thanks 🤝👏
August 23, 2025 at 8:06 AM
I'm so glad you provided the code used to produce the Figures. Most repositories don't include code for reproducing the Figures. Thanks 🤝👏
@laurendsnyder.bsky.social thought you might find this interesting.
August 7, 2025 at 6:15 PM
@laurendsnyder.bsky.social thought you might find this interesting.
Just curious, are you able to reproduce this now? I couldn't reproduce it.
Just read this somewhere:
[remember when AI couldn’t count the number of Rs in “strawberry”? that was eight months ago).]
Just read this somewhere:
[remember when AI couldn’t count the number of Rs in “strawberry”? that was eight months ago).]
August 7, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Just curious, are you able to reproduce this now? I couldn't reproduce it.
Just read this somewhere:
[remember when AI couldn’t count the number of Rs in “strawberry”? that was eight months ago).]
Just read this somewhere:
[remember when AI couldn’t count the number of Rs in “strawberry”? that was eight months ago).]
Verified résumés? Or give Bioinformatics tasks on the application call that require at least 6 hours to complete.
August 5, 2025 at 8:44 PM
Verified résumés? Or give Bioinformatics tasks on the application call that require at least 6 hours to complete.
Reposted by Johnbosco
2. Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research
journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...
journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...
Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research
journals.plos.org
July 12, 2025 at 1:15 PM
2. Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research
journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...
journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...
While authors were extremely or very helpful for 41% of experiments, they were minimally helpful for 9% of experiments, and not at all helpful (or did not respond to us) for 32% of experiments.
#Reproducibility
#CancerResearch
#Reproducibility
#CancerResearch
July 12, 2025 at 6:48 PM
While authors were extremely or very helpful for 41% of experiments, they were minimally helpful for 9% of experiments, and not at all helpful (or did not respond to us) for 32% of experiments.
#Reproducibility
#CancerResearch
#Reproducibility
#CancerResearch
Yes, you would think that the norm now sh'd be to run the code to reproduce the figures in the manuscript during review. But alas, the computing environment in which the data was analyzed such as the package versions used are rarely provided hence reproducibility is a nightmare or just impossible!
July 10, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Yes, you would think that the norm now sh'd be to run the code to reproduce the figures in the manuscript during review. But alas, the computing environment in which the data was analyzed such as the package versions used are rarely provided hence reproducibility is a nightmare or just impossible!