1US Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA
2Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
Received: 06 May 2016 – Discussion started: 20 May 2016
Abstract. In the past decade, difficulties encountered in reproducing the results of a cancer study at Duke University resulted in a scandal and an investigation which concluded that tools used for data management, analysis, and modeling were inappropriate for the documentation of the study, let alone the reproduction of the results. New protocols were developed which require that data analysis and modeling be carried out with scripts that can be used to reproduce the results and are a record of all decisions and interpretations made during an analysis or a modeling effort. In the hydrological sciences, we face similar challenges and need to develop similar standards for transparency and repeatability of results. A promising route is to start making use of open-source languages (such as R and Python) to write scripts and to use collaborative coding environments (such as Git) to share our codes for inspection and use by the hydrological community. An important side-benefit to adopting such protocols is consistency and efficiency among collaborators.
Revised: 25 Aug 2016 – Accepted: 31 Aug 2016 – Published: 12 Sep 2016
Fienen, M. N. and Bakker, M.: HESS Opinions: Repeatable research: what hydrologists can learn from the Duke cancer research scandal, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3739-3743, doi:10.5194/hess-20-3739-2016, 2016.