Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.: Let hydrologists learn the latest computer science by working with Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and not reinvent the waterwheel ourselves

Hut, R.W.; van de Giesen, N.C.; Drost, N

doi:10.1002/2017WR020665

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

Title

Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al.: Let hydrologists learn the latest computer science by working with Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and not reinvent the waterwheel ourselves

Author

Hut, R.W. (TU Delft Water Resources)
van de Giesen, N.C. (TU Delft Water Resources)
Drost, N (Netherlands eScience Center)

Date

2017-05-01

Abstract

The suggestions by Hutton et al. might not be enough to guarantee reproducible computational hydrology. Archiving software code and research data alone will not be enough. We add to the suggestion of Hutton et al. that hydrologists not only document their (computer) work, but that hydrologists use the latest best practices in designing research software, most notably the use of containers and open interfaces. To make sure hydrologists know of these best practices, we urge close collaboration with Research Software Engineers (RSEs).

Subject

computational hydrology
computer science
research software

To reference this document use:

http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:57b5d583-b680-4d50-bd64-6487b3bd194f

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020665

ISSN

0043-1397

Source

Water Resources Research, 53 (5), 4524-4526

Part of collection

Institutional Repository