Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Scientific Programming
Volume 2015, Article ID 243180, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/243180
Research Article

Towards Reproducibility in Scientific Workflows: An Infrastructure-Based Approach

Ontology Engineering Group (OEG), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Avenida Montepríncipe, s/n, 28660 Boadilla del Monte, Spain

Received 12 September 2014; Accepted 3 February 2015

Academic Editor: Gianluigi Greco

Copyright © 2015 Idafen Santana-Perez and María S. Pérez-Hernández. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. P. Mesirov, “Accessible reproducible research,” Science, vol. 327, no. 5964, pp. 415–416, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. Y. Gil, E. Deelman, M. Ellisman et al., “Examining the challenges of scientific workflows,” Computer, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 24–32, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. C. Drummond, “Replicability is not reproducibility: nor is it good science,” in Proceedings of the Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning Workshop at the 26th ICML, 2009.
  4. K. Belhajjame, O. Corcho, D. Garijo et al., “Workflow-centric research objects: first class citizens in scholarly discourse,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantic Publishing, Crete, Greece, 2012.
  5. D. de Roure, K. Belhajjame, P. Missier et al., “Towards the preservation of scientific workflows,” in Proceedings of the the 8th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (iPRES '11), Singapore, 2011.
  6. V. G. Cerf, “Avoiding ‘bit rot’: long-term preservation of digital information,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 915–916, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Zhao, J. M. Gomez-Perez, K. Belhajjame et al., “Why workflows break—understanding and combating decay in Taverna workflows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International Conference on E-Science, pp. 1–9, October 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. D. de Roure, C. Goble, and R. Stevens, “Designing themyexperiment virtual research environment for the social sharing of workflows,” in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on E-Science and Grid Computing (E-SCIENCE '07), pp. 603–610, IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, December 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. T. Oinn, M. Greenwood, M. Addis et al., “Taverna: Lessons in creating a workflow environment for the life sciences,” Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1067–1100, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. I. Wassink, P. E. van der Vet, K. Wolstencroft et al., “Analyzing scientific workflows: why workflows not only connect web services,” in IEEE Congress on Services 2009, L. J. Zhang, Ed., pp. 314–321, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif, USA, July 2009.
  11. P. Mates, E. Santos, J. Freire, and C. T. Silva, “Crowdlabs: social analysis and visualization for the sciences,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management (SSDBM '11), pp. 555–564, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2011.
  12. B. Giardine, C. Riemer, R. C. Hardison et al., “Galaxy: a platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis,” Genome Research, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 1451–1455, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. Reich, T. Liefeld, J. Gould, J. Lerner, P. Tamayo, and J. P. Mesirov, “GenePattern 2.0,” Nature Genetics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 500–501, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. B. Matthews, A. Shaon, J. Bicarregui, J. Catherine, J. Woodcock, and E. Conway, Towards a Methodology for Software Preservation, 2009.
  15. 2011, http://www.executablepapers.com/.
  16. P. Van Gorp and S. Mazanek, “Share: a web portal for creating and sharing executable research papers,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 4, pp. 589–597, 2011, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  17. G. R. Brammer, R. W. Crosby, S. J. Matthews, and T. L. Williams, “Paper mache: creating dynamic reproducible science,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 4, pp. 658–667, 2011, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science (fICCSg '11). View at Google Scholar
  18. P. Bonnet, S. Manegold, M. Bjørling et al., “Repeatability and workability evaluation of SIGMOD 2011,” SIGMOD Record, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 45–48, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. B. Howe, “Virtual appliances, cloud computing, and reproducible research,” Computing in Science and Engineering, vol. 14, no. 4, Article ID 6193081, pp. 36–41, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. Reproducibility in computational and experimental mathematics, 2012.
  21. F. Chirigati, D. Shasha, and J. Freire, “ReproZip: using provenance to support computational reproducibility,” in Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance, 2013.
  22. P. J. Guo, “CDE: run any Linux application on-demand without installation,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Large Installation System Administration (LISA '11), USENIX Association, Berkeley, Calif, USA, December 2011.
  23. S. Strodl, R. Mayer, G. Antunes, D. Draws, and A. Rauber, “Digital preservation of a process and its application to e-science experiments,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (IPRES '13), 2013.
  24. Puppet Labs, Puppet, http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/puppet.
  25. Opscode, Chef, http://www.opscode.com/chef/.
  26. S. Azarnoosh, M. Rynge, G. Juve et al., “Introducing precip: an api for managing repeatable experiments in the cloud,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 5th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom '13), pp. 19–26, Bristol, UK, December 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. M. Gavish and D. Donoho, “A universal identifier for computational results,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 4, pp. 637–647, 2011, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science (fICCSg '11). View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. M. Hauder, Efficient text analytics with scientific workflows [M.S. thesis], University of Augsburg, Institute for Software and Systems Engineering, Augsburg, Germany, 2011.
  29. Systemtap, http://sourceware.org/systemtap/.