As a result, such review processes are encouraged, but remain completely optional for ACM journals and conferences, and when they are made available, it is recommended that participation by authors also be made optional. Of course, there remain many circumstances in which such enhanced review will be either infeasible or not possible. Here we provide terminology and standards for review processes of these types in order to promote a base level of uniformity which will enable labeling of successfully reviewed papers across ACM publications choosing to adopt such practices. And perhaps more importantly, well-formed and documented artifacts allow others to build directly upon the previous work through reuse and repurposing.Ī number of ACM conferences and journals have already instituted formal processes for artifact review. This also enables replication experiments to be performed, which, because they inevitably are done under slightly different conditions, serve to verify the robustness of the original results. For example, artifacts can be software systems, scripts used to run experiments, input datasets, raw data collected in the experiment, or scripts used to analyze results.Īdditional benefits ensue if the research artifacts are themselves made publically available so that any interested party may audit them. By "artifact" we mean a digital object that was either created by the authors to be used as part of the study or generated by the experiment itself. An intermediate approach is to require that artifacts associated with the work undergo a formal audit. An extreme approach would be to require completely independent reproduction of results as part of the refereeing process. Publishers can promote the integrity of the research ecosystem by developing review processes that increase the likelihood that results can be independently replicated and reproduced. A variety of recent studies, primarily in the biomedical field, have revealed that an uncomfortably large number of research results found in the literature fail this test, because of sloppy experimental methods, flawed statistical analyses, or in rare cases, fraud. " MIC Drop (Steve Aoki Remix) (Feat.(see: current version of Artifact Review and Badging v1.1)Īn experimental result is not fully established unless it can be independently reproduced. LOVE YOURSELF 承 Her ' Serendipity' Comeback Trailer
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |