Reproducibility Interest Group - TAB Review

Interest Group Title:  Reproducibility

Proposers:  Victoria Stodden and Bernard Schutz

Date Received by TAB:  November 6, 2014

Date Review Completed:  November 20, 2014

TAB Reviewers:  Jamie Shiers and Andrew Treloar

Summary:  

TAB recommends that the IG charter be approved.

Focus and Fit:  

(Are the Interest Group objectives aligned with the RDA mission ?  Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA?  Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on?  Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)

The objectives are definitely aligned with the driver of reducing barriers to interoperability (interoperating with someone else's data requires attention to the kinds of things that are in scope for this group)

Furthermore, the funding agencies are now requiring reproducibility to be addressed, so this is a very topical issue.

The scope is large, but the right people are involved.

Overall, this is a worthwhile effort and would serve to coordinate lots of ongoing but uncoordinated activity.

Capacity:

(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation?  Are the people involved in the Interest Group sufficient to make tangible progress?  What individuals or organizations are missing?) 

The initial membership is an embarrassment of riches. No suggestions for additions.

Impact and Engagement:

(Is it likely that the Interest Group will engage the intended community?  Is there evidence that the research community wants this?  Will the outcome(s) of the Interest Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)

Based on those involved, there seems little risk that the community will not be engaged. There is increasing interest in a number of research communities in the subject of reproducibility, and so this is very timely.

See also the above - funding agencies are requiring this (or at least a good let-out).

Recommendation:  

Charter is Sufficient X; Charter Requires Revision __; Charter is Rejected __

Comments:

<if conditional, state revisions … e.g., TAB recommends that the IG charter be conditionally approved subject to the following change to the IG charter:>