Abstract:Jupyter notebooks facilitate the bundling of executable code with its documentation and output in one interactive environment, and they represent a popular mechanism to document and share computational workflows, including for research publications. The reproducibility of computational aspects of research is a key component of scientific reproducibility but has not yet been assessed at scale for Jupyter notebooks associated with biomedical publications. We address computational reproducibility at 2 levels: (i) using fully automated workflows, we analyzed the computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks associated with publications indexed in the biomedical literature repository PubMed Central. We identified such notebooks by mining the article's full text, trying to locate them on GitHub, and attempting to rerun them in an environment as close to the original as possible. We documented reproduction success and exceptions and explored relationships between notebook reproducibility and variables related to the notebooks or publications. (ii) This study represents a reproducibility attempt in and of itself, using essentially the same methodology twice on PubMed Central over the course of 2 years, during which the corpus of Jupyter notebooks from articles indexed in PubMed Central has grown in a highly dynamic fashion. Out of 27,271 Jupyter notebooks from 2,660 GitHub repositories associated with 3,467 publications, 22,578 notebooks were written in Python, including 15,817 that had their dependencies declared in standard requirement files and that we attempted to rerun automatically. For 10,388 of these, all declared dependencies could be installed successfully, and we reran them to assess reproducibility. Of these, 1,203 notebooks ran through without any errors, including 879 that produced results identical to those reported in the original notebook and 324 for which our results differed from the originally reported ones. Running the other notebooks resulted in exceptions. We zoom in on common problems and practices, highlight trends, and discuss potential improvements to Jupyter-related workflows associated with biomedical publications.

An End-to-End System for Reproducibility Assessment of Source Code Repositories via Their Readmes

Who Should Review This Change?: Putting Text and File Location Analyses Together for More Accurate Recommendations

Toward Reusable Science with Readable Code and Reproducibility

Laying foundations to quantify the "Effort of Reproducibility"

RepoMasterEval: Evaluating Code Completion via Real-World Repositories

Navigating the Landscape of Reproducible Research: A Predictive Modeling Approach

SeqScore: Addressing Barriers to Reproducible Named Entity Recognition Evaluation

Reproducibility of Issues Reported in Stack Overflow Questions: Challenges, Impact & Estimation

mlscorecheck : Testing the consistency of reported performance scores and experiments in machine learning

Estimating defectiveness of source code: A predictive model using GitHub content

ReadMe++: Benchmarking Multilingual Language Models for Multi-Domain Readability Assessment

Computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks from biomedical publications

How Effectively Do Code Language Models Understand Poor-Readability Code?

Structuring Meaningful Code Review Automation in Developer Community

Can citations tell us about a paper's reproducibility? A case study of machine learning papers

Categorizing the Content of GitHub README Files

Code to Comment Translation: A Comparative Study on Model Effectiveness & Errors

Code Comments: A Way of Identifying Similarities in the Source Code

Measuring the Effectiveness of Software Code Review Comments

A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Research

"Can I Implement Your Algorithm?": A Model for Reproducible Research Software