Premium
Reply to comment by Melsen et al. on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?”
Author(s) -
Hutton Christopher,
Wagener Thorsten,
Freer Jim,
Han Dawei,
Duffy Chris,
Arheimer Berit
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1002/2017wr020476
Subject(s) - workflow , computer science , degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry) , focus (optics) , code (set theory) , set (abstract data type) , process (computing) , key (lock) , subject (documents) , work (physics) , hydrology (agriculture) , data science , programming language , library science , database , engineering , computer security , geotechnical engineering , mechanical engineering , physics , quantum mechanics , optics
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.