references.bib

@article{knuth84,
  author = {Knuth, Donald E.},
  title = {Literate Programming},
  year = {1984},
  issue_date = {May 1984},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press, Inc.},
  address = {USA},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  issn = {0010-4620},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97},
  doi = {10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97},
  journal = {Comput. J.},
  month = may,
  pages = {97–111},
  numpages = {15}
}




@article{kirczModularityNextForm1998,
  title = {Modularity: The next Form of Scientific Information Presentation?},
  shorttitle = {Modularity},
  author = {Kircz, Joost G.},
  year = {1998},
  month = jan,
  journal = {Journal of Documentation},
  volume = {54},
  number = {2},
  pages = {210--235},
  publisher = {{MCB UP Ltd}},
  issn = {0022-0418},
  doi = {10.1108/EUM0000000007185},
  urldate = {2020-06-10},
  abstract = {The development of electronic publishing heralds a new period in scientific communications. Besides the obvious advantages of an almost endless storage and transport capacity, many new features come to the fore. As each technology finds its own expressions in the ways scientific communications take form, we analyse print on paper scientific articles in order to obtain the necessary ingredients for shaping a new model for electronic communications. A short historical overview shows that the typical form of the present-day linear (essay-type) scientific article is the result of a technological development over the centuries. The various characteristics of print on paper are discussed and the foreseeable changes to a more modular form of communication in an electronic environment are postulated. Subsequently we take the functions of the present-day scientific article vis-{\`a}-vis the author and the reader as starting points. We then focus on the process of scientific information transfer and deal essentially with the information consumption by the reader. Different types of information, at present intermingled in the linear article, can be separated and stored in well-defined, cognitive, textual modules. To serve the scientists better in finding their way through the information overload of today, we conclude that the electronic information transfer of the future will be, in essence, a transfer of well-defined, cognitive information modules. In the last part of this article we outline the first steps towards a new heuristic model for such scientific information transfer.},
  keywords = {Electronic publishing,Information retrieval,Scientific management},
  timestamp = {2020-06-10T19:09:13Z}
}

@article{erringtonChallengesAssessingReplicability2021,
  ids = {erringtonChallengesAssessingReplicability2021a},
  title = {Challenges for Assessing Replicability in Preclinical Cancer Biology},
  author = {Errington, Timothy M and Denis, Alexandria and Perfito, Nicole and Iorns, Elizabeth and Nosek, Brian A},
  editor = {Rodgers, Peter and Franco, Eduardo},
  year = {2021},
  month = dec,
  journal = {eLife},
  volume = {10},
  pages = {e67995},
  publisher = {{eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd}},
  issn = {2050-084X},
  doi = {10.7554/eLife.67995},
  urldate = {2021-12-07},
  abstract = {We conducted the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology to investigate the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology. The initial aim of the project was to repeat 193 experiments from 53 high-impact papers, using an approach in which the experimental protocols and plans for data analysis had to be peer reviewed and accepted for publication before experimental work could begin. However, the various barriers and challenges we encountered while designing and conducting the experiments meant that we were only able to repeat 50 experiments from 23 papers. Here we report these barriers and challenges. First, many original papers failed to report key descriptive and inferential statistics: the data needed to compute effect sizes and conduct power analyses was publicly accessible for just 4 of 193 experiments. Moreover, despite contacting the authors of the original papers, we were unable to obtain these data for 68\% of the experiments. Second, none of the 193 experiments were described in sufficient detail in the original paper to enable us to design protocols to repeat the experiments, so we had to seek clarifications from the original authors. While authors were extremely or very helpful for 41\% of experiments, they were minimally helpful for 9\% of experiments, and not at all helpful (or did not respond to us) for 32\% of experiments. Third, once experimental work started, 67\% of the peer-reviewed protocols required modifications to complete the research and just 41\% of those modifications could be implemented. Cumulatively, these three factors limited the number of experiments that could be repeated. This experience draws attention to a basic and fundamental concern about replication {\textendash} it is hard to assess whether reported findings are credible.},
  keywords = {open data,open science,preregistration,replication,reproducibility,Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology},
  timestamp = {2024-01-15T21:00:48Z}
}

@article{Rousi_2022,
   title={Overlay journals: A study of the current landscape},
   ISSN={1741-6477},
   url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09610006221125208},
   DOI={10.1177/09610006221125208},
   journal={Journal of Librarianship and Information Science},
   publisher={SAGE Publications},
   author={Rousi, Antti Mikael and Laakso, Mikael},
   year={2022},
   month=oct, pages={096100062211252} }