You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardexpand all lines: evaluation/badges.html
+2-2
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ <h1 class="title">Badges</h1>
243
243
<p><em>Caveat: Please note that these criteria are based on available information about each badge online, and that we have likely differences in our procedure (e.g. allowed troubleshooting for execution and reproduction, not under tight time pressure to complete). Moreover, we focus only on reproduction of the discrete-event simulation, and not on other aspects of the article. We cannot guarantee that the badges below would have been awarded in practice by these journals.</em></p>
<p>Exploring methods for overlaying figures. Not timed as not about reproduction of this study, but about how we are going to do this each time when reproducing.</p>
288
288
<p>Decided that it’s not helpful to do this - spend more time fiddling around with getting them to resize and overlay correctly - and that the simplest option here would be to compare by eye.</p>
<h3class="anchored" data-anchor-id="comparing-best-practice-audit-results-with-monks-and-harper">Comparing best practice audit results with Monks and Harper</h3>
385
385
<p>Compared my decisions for the best practice audit against those made in Monks and Harper.</p>
386
386
<p>Their GitHub is <ahref="https://github.com/TomMonks/des_sharing_lit_review">TomMonks/des_sharing_lit_review</a>, which provides the file <code>bp_audit.zip</code>. I used the provided code to clean this and saved it as <code>bp_audit_clean.csv</code>, which can then view here:</p>
0 commit comments