The reviewing process

A submission takes the form of a Pull Request which is a mechanism in GitHub to request the integration of some code into a repository. We use this mechanism as the primary source for the review because it allows to precisely comment each source and to exchange with the author. If you’re unfamiliar with GitHub, do not hesitate to ask advices and informations to the editor in charge of editing the submission. You can have a look at what a full submission looks like. Reviewers unfamiliar with git should have a look at

To review a submission, you’ll first have to clone the author’s repository onto your desktop environment and each time an author update the manuscript or code to get reviewer’s comment into account, you’ll have to update your local copy using the git pull command.

Reviewer guidelines

Successful replications

Most articles in ReScience reports th successful replication of the results (figures, tables, …) of previously published research work. A full replication covers all the results of the original work, whereas a partial replication covers only a subset of the results.

The main criteria for acceptance are

  1. The actual replication of the research. The reviewer must evaluate the authors’ claims about a successful replication, applying the standards of the field.

  2. Reproducibility of the replication. The reviewers must be able to run the proposed implementation on their computer, and obtain the same results as the authors with the limits of the state of of the art of the field.

  3. Clarity of the code and the instructions for running it. Uncommented or obfuscated code is as bad as no code at all.

  4. Clarity and completeness of the accompanying article, in which the authors should clearly state why they think they have replicated the paper (same figures, same graphics, same behavior, etc.) and explain any obstacles they have encountered during the replication work.

The primary goal of the review is not to decide whether to accept or reject a submission, but to help the authors improve their work until it meets the ReScience quality standards. Since ReScience targets replication of already published research, there is no need to judge the relevance or novelty of the work. Every replication that meets the criteria listed above is welcome in ReScience. Rejection remains of course a possiblity, in the case that the authors are not able or willing to improve their submission as deemed necessary by the reviewers.

When evaluating the criteria for acceptance, reviewers need to apply the standards of their field of research. There are no absolute criteria for two results/figures being equal, so both the success and the reproducibility of the replication must be judged according to the degree of equality that can be achieved given the state of the art of the field. The clarity of the code and instructions must also be judged in the light of the conventions of the field. As a general goal, any competent researcher in the field should understand the paper and be able to understand and run the code. The use of software packages that are mainstream in the field is encouraged, but not strictly required. The less well-known a software package is, the more explanation authors should provide concerning its capabilities and use.

Failed replications

A replication attempt can lead to the finding that the results of the original paper cannot be reproduced, suggesting a mistake or ommission in the original work. The failure can concern some or all of the results. ReScience accepts reports on replication failures, but requires a particularly careful examination by the reviewers. The authors must describe in detail why they believe that the original work is mistaken, and the reviewers must be convinced by the reasoning offered by the authors.

Authors who are confronted with replication failure are strongly encouraged to contact the authors of the original work and try to explore the causes of the replication failure in collaboration with them. This is, however, not a requirement for publication in ReScience.

The editing process

The role of a scientific editor is to manage a submission from start to end, i.e. from the initial acknowledgment request by the editor-in-chief to the final publication (with DOI). As an editor, your goal is to help authors improve their submission in order to meet the journal’s quality standards and to ensure that anyone can re-use the published code. Depending on the specific domain, an editor might request the article to follow best practices of the domain. For example, in computational neuroscience, it may be desirable for models to be formally described using the proposal of Nordlie et al, 2009. You can have a look at what a full submission looks like.

Editor guidelines

  • When a pull request (PR) has been assigned to you, you have to acknowledge the PR (as a comment in the PR discussion). Depending on your decision, you can either reject and close the PR (and motivate such decision) or accept it and assign one or two reviewers (depending if you intend to review the PR yourself or not). You alert the reviewers in the PR acknowledgment (use the @ alert syntax). If you think you cannot handle the submission within a reasonable delay, you should re-assign the PR to another editor after having obtained his or her agreement.

  • You have to edit the initial PR text to add some information:

    * [ ] Editor acknowledgment
    * [ ] Review 1 started
    * [ ] Review 2 started
    * [ ] Review 1 decision [accept/reject]
    * [ ] Review 2 decision [accept/reject]
    * [ ] Editor decision [accept/reject]

    You’ll need to ask reviewers to add their GitHub login after review 1 started or review 2 started. For example review 1 started (@rougier)

  • During the review, reviewers are free to interact with the authors in the PR to ask for clarification or change in any file that is part of the submission.

  • Don’t forget to update PR labels according to the status of submission

  • The main criterion for acceptance is the actual replication of the research with a clear statement by the authors explaining why they think they have replicated the paper (same figures, same graphics, same behavior, etc.). However, keep in mind that the clarity of the code is an important criterion. Uncommented or obfuscated code is as bad as no code at all. A code without the accompanying article is also a criterion for rejection since we’re not human compilers (well not all of us at least).

  • Don’t forget to check that there is a license in the code repository. Authors can choose whatever open license they prefer (see the Debian Free Software Guidelines) but they need to choose one.

  • If both reviewers agree, the paper can be accepted.

The publication process

The publication is currently far from automatic and requires a number of steps that are listed here:

  • Lock the conversation on the original PR
  • Ask the author(s) for keywords if they haven’t provided them already.
  • Import the authors’ repository into the ReScience archives ( using the naming convention “Author(s)-YEAR”
  • Add a new remote (named rescience) in your local copy of the repository that points to the newly imported repository (the one on ReScience-Archives)
  • Update article metadata:
    • Editor name
    • Reviewer 1 name
    • Reviewer 2 name
    • Submission date
    • Publication date
    • Article repository
    • Code repository
    • Notebook repository (if necessary)
    • Data repository (if necessary)
    • Volume, issue and year
    • Article number (after reserving the number in the dedicated GitHub issue).
  • If the article name is not Author(s), rename it
  • Rebuild the PDF and check everything is OK
  • Merge the rescience branch into master
  • Push these changes onto the rescience remote repository
  • Make a new release:
    • Release version number is 1.0
    • Release name is Author(s)-YEAR-1.0
  • Download the zip file and rename it to Author(s)
  • Upload this zip file to Zenodo. You will have to fill several fields:
    • Name of the journal is ReScience
    • Under “Communities” add “ReScience journal”
    • Under “Contributors” add yourself with role “Editor”.
    • Don’t forget keywords
  • Add the 04-Published label to the PR
  • Announce publication in the PR (and quote the DOI, see #3 for example)
  • Make a PR to the Web site repository in order to update the page This requires creating a new post (directory _posts) based on this model because the page is composed from the posts of type article.
  • Make a PR to update Rescience/Volume X - Issue
  • Close the PR without merging
  • Inform the editors-in-chief about the new publication
  • If you’re uncertain at any step of the procedure, ask the editors-in-chief for advice.