Overview of the submission process

The ReScience editorial board unites scientists who are committed to the open source community. They are experienced developers who are familiar with the GitHub ecosystem. Each editorial board member is specialised in a specific domain of science and is proficient in several programming languages and/or environments. Our aim is to provide all authors with an efficient, constructive and public editorial process.

Submitted entries are first considered by a member of the editorial board, who may decide to reject the submission (mainly because it has already been replicated and is publicly available), or assign it to two reviewers for further review and tests. The reviewers evaluate the code and the accompanying material in continuous interaction with the authors through the PR discussion section. If both reviewers managed to run the code and obtain the same results as the ones advertised in the accompanying material, the submission is accepted. If any of the two reviewers cannot replicate the results before the deadline, the submission is rejected and authors are encouraged to resubmit an improved version later.

Criteria for Publication

To be considered for publication in ReScience, any given submission must satisfy the following criteria:

  • Replicability
  • Rigorous methodology
  • Original source code
  • Substantial evidence for replication of the original results

Furthermore, you cannot submit the replication of your own research, nor the research of your close collaborators. We believe such restrictions will favor the cross-fertilization of research and the spread of knowledge.

Open Access

ReScience applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to all works we publish. Under the CC BY license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles in ReScience journal, so long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

How to submit ?

  • Create a GitHub account
  • Fork the ReScience submission repository
  • Clone this new repository into your desktop environment

    $ git clone https://github.com/YOUR-USERNAME/ReScience-submission
    
  • Create a branch (the branch name should be author names separated with dashes)

    $ git checkout -b AUTHOR1-AUTHOR2-...-AUTHORN-YEAR
    
  • Add your code & article and commit your changes:

    $ git commit -a -m "Some comment"
    
  • Push to GitHub

    $ git push origin AUTHOR1-AUTHOR2-...-AUTHORN-YEAR
    
  • Issue a pull request (PR) to ReScience with title “Review Request” and insert the following text in the description:

    **AUTHOR**
      
    Dear @ReScience/editors,
    
    I request a review for the replication of the following paper:
    
    * References of the paper holding results you're replicating
    
    I believed the original results have been faithfully replicated
    as explained in the accompanying [article](link to your pdf).
      
    Repository lives at (link to your repository/branch)
    ---
      
    **EDITOR**
    
    * [ ] Editor acknowledgment ()
    * [ ] Reviewer 1 ()
    * [ ] Reviewer 2 ()
    * [ ] Review 1 decision [accept/reject]
    * [ ] Review 2 decision [accept/reject]
    * [ ] Editor decision [accept/reject]
    
  • Assign the PR to an editor from the editorial board
  • Answer questions and requests made in the PR conversation page.

You can have a look at a previous submission

Preparation of the material

The structure of a submission is:

+ README.md
+ article
|  | author(s)-YEAR.md
|  | author(s)-YEAR.bib
|  | LICENSE.md (CC-BY 4.0)
|  | ...
|  + ...
+ code
|  | README.md
   | LICENSE.md (to be chosen)
|  | ...
|  + ...
+ data
|  | README.md
|  | LICENSE.md (CC 0)
|  | ...
|  + ...
+ notebook
   | README.md
   | LICENSE.md (to be chosen)
   |
   + ...
  • A top README.md file that will be displayed when a reader enters your submission directory (once published)
  • An author(s)-YEAR.md file that introduces the original paper, explains the technical details of the replication and gives the evidence for the replication of the original results.
  • A code directory that contains the commented code for the replication.
  • A data directory that contains any data necessary to run the code.
  • A notebook directory that may contain notebooks if relevant.
  • Don’t forget to choose a license for the code repository. You’re free to choose whatever open license you prefer (see the Debian Free Software Guidelines) but you need to choose one.
  • In the READMD.md file, include information on the platform that was used to generate the results according to our platform instructions.