Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.

Lieke A. Melsen; Paul J.J.F. Torfs; Remko Uijlenhoet; Ryan Teuling

doi:10.1002/2016WR020208

Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.

Lieke A. Melsen^*
, Paul J.J.F. Torfs
, Remko Uijlenhoet
, Ryan Teuling

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We discuss two definitions of reproducibility, and question if both definitions are required to be met in computational hydrological studies.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2568-2569
Journal	Water Resources Research
Volume	53
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020208
Publication status	Published - 2017

Keywords

computational hydrology
repeatability
reproducibility

Access to Document

10.1002/2016WR020208

Cite this

@article{0c0cf96e9bf64343b41a58ca4427f4b3,

title = "Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.",

abstract = "We discuss two definitions of reproducibility, and question if both definitions are required to be met in computational hydrological studies.",

keywords = "computational hydrology, repeatability, reproducibility",

author = "Melsen, \{Lieke A.\} and Torfs, \{Paul J.J.F.\} and Remko Uijlenhoet and Ryan Teuling",

year = "2017",

doi = "10.1002/2016WR020208",

language = "English",

volume = "53",

pages = "2568--2569",

journal = "Water Resources Research",

issn = "0043-1397",

publisher = "American Geophysical Union",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.

AU - Melsen, Lieke A.

AU - Torfs, Paul J.J.F.

AU - Uijlenhoet, Remko

AU - Teuling, Ryan

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - We discuss two definitions of reproducibility, and question if both definitions are required to be met in computational hydrological studies.

AB - We discuss two definitions of reproducibility, and question if both definitions are required to be met in computational hydrological studies.

KW - computational hydrology

KW - repeatability

KW - reproducibility

U2 - 10.1002/2016WR020208

DO - 10.1002/2016WR020208

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

AN - SCOPUS:85017405144

SN - 0043-1397

VL - 53

SP - 2568

EP - 2569

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

IS - 3

ER -

Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this