Reply to comment by Melsen et al. on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?”

Christopher Hutton, Thorsten Wagener, Jim Freer, Dawei Han, Christopher J. Duffy, Berit Arheimer

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this article, we reply to a comment made by Melsen et al. [2017] on our previous commentary regarding reproducibility in computational hydrology. Re-executing someone else's code and workflow to derive a set of published results does not by itself constitute reproducibility. However, it forms a key part of the process: it demonstrates that all the degrees of freedom and choices made by the scientist in running the experiment are contained within that code and workflow. This does not only allow us to build and extend directly from the original work, but with full knowledge of decisions made in the original experimental setup, we can then focus our attention to the degrees of freedom of interest: those that occur in hydrological systems that are ultimately our subject of study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2570-2571
Number of pages2
JournalWater Resources Research
Volume53
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

hydrology
experiment
code
freedom
science
decision

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

Hutton, Christopher ; Wagener, Thorsten ; Freer, Jim ; Han, Dawei ; Duffy, Christopher J. ; Arheimer, Berit. / Reply to comment by Melsen et al. on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?”. In: Water Resources Research. 2017 ; Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 2570-2571.
@article{a7eb5ecb74734ce0a92e26bcb4ba9b99,
title = "Reply to comment by Melsen et al. on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?”",
abstract = "In this article, we reply to a comment made by Melsen et al. [2017] on our previous commentary regarding reproducibility in computational hydrology. Re-executing someone else's code and workflow to derive a set of published results does not by itself constitute reproducibility. However, it forms a key part of the process: it demonstrates that all the degrees of freedom and choices made by the scientist in running the experiment are contained within that code and workflow. This does not only allow us to build and extend directly from the original work, but with full knowledge of decisions made in the original experimental setup, we can then focus our attention to the degrees of freedom of interest: those that occur in hydrological systems that are ultimately our subject of study.",
author = "Christopher Hutton and Thorsten Wagener and Jim Freer and Dawei Han and Duffy, {Christopher J.} and Berit Arheimer",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/2017WR020476",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "2570--2571",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "3",

}

Reply to comment by Melsen et al. on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?”. / Hutton, Christopher; Wagener, Thorsten; Freer, Jim; Han, Dawei; Duffy, Christopher J.; Arheimer, Berit.

In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 2570-2571.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to comment by Melsen et al. on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?”

AU - Hutton, Christopher

AU - Wagener, Thorsten

AU - Freer, Jim

AU - Han, Dawei

AU - Duffy, Christopher J.

AU - Arheimer, Berit

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - In this article, we reply to a comment made by Melsen et al. [2017] on our previous commentary regarding reproducibility in computational hydrology. Re-executing someone else's code and workflow to derive a set of published results does not by itself constitute reproducibility. However, it forms a key part of the process: it demonstrates that all the degrees of freedom and choices made by the scientist in running the experiment are contained within that code and workflow. This does not only allow us to build and extend directly from the original work, but with full knowledge of decisions made in the original experimental setup, we can then focus our attention to the degrees of freedom of interest: those that occur in hydrological systems that are ultimately our subject of study.

AB - In this article, we reply to a comment made by Melsen et al. [2017] on our previous commentary regarding reproducibility in computational hydrology. Re-executing someone else's code and workflow to derive a set of published results does not by itself constitute reproducibility. However, it forms a key part of the process: it demonstrates that all the degrees of freedom and choices made by the scientist in running the experiment are contained within that code and workflow. This does not only allow us to build and extend directly from the original work, but with full knowledge of decisions made in the original experimental setup, we can then focus our attention to the degrees of freedom of interest: those that occur in hydrological systems that are ultimately our subject of study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017403486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017403486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/2017WR020476

DO - 10.1002/2017WR020476

M3 - Letter

AN - SCOPUS:85017403486

VL - 53

SP - 2570

EP - 2571

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - 3

ER -