diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'peer-review')
| -rw-r--r-- | peer-review/1-answer.txt | 1216 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | peer-review/1-review.txt | 788 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | peer-review/2-review.txt | 147 |
3 files changed, 2151 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/peer-review/1-answer.txt b/peer-review/1-answer.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8511715 --- /dev/null +++ b/peer-review/1-answer.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1216 @@ +Dear CiSE editos, + +Thank you very much for the very complete and useful referee reports. They +have been fully implemented in this submission and have significantly +improved teh quality and clarity of the paper. + +Below all the points raised by the Editor in Chief (EiC), Associate editor, +and the 5 referees (in the same order as the review process report) are +addressed individually as a numbered list. + +Sincerely yours, +Dr. Mohammad Akhlaghi [on behalf of the co-authors] +Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +1. [EiC] Some reviewers request additions, and overview of other + tools. + +ANSWER: Indeed, there is already a large body of previous work in this +field, and we had learnt a lot from them during the creation of the +criteria and the proof of concept tool (Maneage). Before submitting the +paper, we had already done a very comprehensive review of the tools (as you +may notice from the Git repository[1], where most of the tools were run and +practically tested). However, the CiSE Author Information explicitly +states: "The introduction should provide a modicum of background in one or +two paragraphs, but should not attempt to give a literature review". This +is the usual practice in previously published papers at CiSE and is in line +with the maximum 6250 word-count and maximum of 12 references to be used in +bibliography. + +We already discussed this point privately with you and we agreed upon the +following solution: the extended reviews will be submitted as supplementary +material, to accompany the paper as "Web extras". These appendices are also +mentioned in the submitted paper so that any interested CiSE reader can +easily be informed about the existance from the paper and access them. + +Appendix A is focused on the low-level "tools" that are commonly used in +the reproducible workflow solutions (including Maneage). In Appendix B, we +touch upon +25 reproducible solutions and compare them directly with our +criteria. In particular, we also review tools that have been abandoned or +discontinued and use the criteria to justify why this happened. + +[1] https://gitlab.com/makhlaghi/maneage-paper/-/blob/master/tex/src/paper-long.tex#L1579 +[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 +[3] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3872247 + +------------------------------ + + + + + +2. [Associate Editor] There are general concerns about the paper + lacking focus + +ANSWER: Thanks to all the corrections/clarifications that have been done in +this review, the paper is much more focused and direct to the point. We are +very grateful to the thorough listing of points by the referees that helped +clarify points that we needed to improve. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +3. [Associate Editor] Some terminology is not well-defined + (e.g. longevity). + +ANSWER: In this revision, "Reproducibility", "Longevity" and "Usage" have +been explicitly defined in the first paragraph of Section II. With this +definition, the main argument of the paper has become much more clear. +Thank you (and the referees) for highlighting this. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +4. [Associate Editor] The discussion of tools could benefit from some + categorization to characterize their longevity. + +ANSWER: The approximate longevity of the various tools reviewed in Section +II is now mentioned immediately after each and highlighted in green. For +example we have added this after containers "(their longevity is determined +by the host kernel, typically a decade)". + +------------------------------ + + + + + +5. [Associate Editor] Background and related efforts need significant + improvement. (See below.) + +ANSWER: This has been done, as mentioned in (1.) above. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +6. [Associate Editor] There is consistency among the reviews that + related work is particularly lacking. + +ANSWER: This has been done, as mentioned in (1.) above. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +7. [Associate Editor] The current work needs to do a better job of + explaining how it deals with the nagging problem of running on CPU + vs. different architectures. + +ANSWER: The CPU architecture of the running system is now precisely +reported in the "Acknowledgments" section (highlighted in green). Also, a +description of dependency on hardware architecture, and how Maneage reports +this, is also added in the "Proof of concept: Maneage" Section. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +8. [Associate Editor] At least one review commented on the need to + include a discussion of continuous integration (CI) and its + potential to help identify problems running on different + architectures. Is CI employed in any way in the work presented in + this article? + +ANSWER: CI has been added in the "Discussion" section as one solution to +find breaking points in operating system updates and new/different +architectures. For the core Maneage branch, we have defined task #15741 [1] +to add CI on many architectures in the near future. + +[1] http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15741 + +------------------------------ + + + + + +9. [Associate Editor] The presentation of the Maneage tool is both + lacking in clarity and consistency with the public + information/documentation about the tool. While our review focus + is on the article, it is important that readers not be confused + when they visit your site to use your tools. + +ANSWER: Thank you for raising this important point. We have broken down the +very long "About" page into multiple pages to help in readability: + +https://maneage.org/about.html + +Generally, the webpage will soon undergo major improvements to be even more +clear (as part of our RDA grant for Maneage, after the paper we have +promised a clear and friendly webpage). The website is developed on a +public git repository (https://git.maneage.org/webpage.git), so any +specific proposals for improvements can be handled efficiently and +transparently and we welcome any feedback in this aspect. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +10. [Associate Editor] A significant question raised by one review is + how this work compares to "executable" papers and Jupyter + notebooks. Does this work embody similar/same design principles + or expand upon the established alternatives? In any event, a + discussion of this should be included in background/motivation and + related work to help readers understand the clear need for a new + approach, if this is being presented as new/novel. + +ANSWER: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We saw that it is +necessary to compare and contrast our Maneage proof-of-concept +demonstration more directly against the Jupyter notebook type of +approach. Two paragraphs have been added in Sections II and IV to clarify +this (our criteria require and build in more modularity and longevity than +Jupyter). A much more extensive comparison and review is now also available +in Appendix A. + + +------------------------------ + + + + + +11. [Reviewer 1] Adding an explicit list of contributions would make + it easier to the reader to appreciate these. These are not + mentioned/cited and are highly relevant to this paper (in no + particular order): + 1. Git flows, both in general and in particular for research. + 2. Provenance work, in general and with git in particular + 3. Reprozip: https://www.reprozip.org/ + 4. OCCAM: https://occam.cs.pitt.edu/ + 5. Popper: http://getpopper.io/ + 6. Whole Tale: https://wholetale.org/ + 7. Snakemake: https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake + 8. CWL https://www.commonwl.org/ and WDL https://openwdl.org/ + 9. Nextflow: https://www.nextflow.io/ + 10. Sumatra: https://pythonhosted.org/Sumatra/ + 11. Podman: https://podman.io + 12. AppImage (https://appimage.org/) + 13. Flatpack (https://flatpak.org/) + 14. Snap (https://snapcraft.io/) + 15. nbdev https://github.com/fastai/nbdev and jupytext + 16. Bazel: https://bazel.build/ + 17. Debian reproducible builds: https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds + +ANSWER: + +1. In Section IV, we have added that "Generally, any git flow (branching + strategies) can be used by the high-level project authors or future + readers." +2. We have mentioned research objects as one mode of provenance tracking + and the related provenance work that has already been done and can be + exploited using these criteria and our proof of concept is indeed very + large. However, the 6250 word-count limit is very tight and if we add + more on it in this length, we would have to remove points of higher priority. + Hopefully this can be the subject of a follow-up paper. +3. A review of ReproZip is in Appendix B. +4. A review of Occam is in Appendix B. +5. A review of Popper is in Appendix B. +6. A review of Whole Tale is in Appendix B. +7. A review of Snakemake is in Appendix A. +8. CWL and WDL are described in Appendix A (Job management). +9. Nextflow is described in Appendix A (Job management). +10. Sumatra is described in Appendix B. +11. Podman is mentioned in Appendix A (Containers). +12. AppImage is mentioned in Appendix A (Package management). +13. Flatpak is mentioned in Appendix A (Package management). +14. Snap is mentioned in Appendix A (Package management). +15. nbdev and jupytext are high-level tools to generate documentation and + packaging custom code in Conda or pypi. High-level package managers + like Conda and Pypi have already been thoroughly reviewed in Appendix A + for their longevity issues, so we feel that there is no need to + include these. +16. Bazel is mentioned in Appendix A (job management). +17. Debian's reproducible builds are only designed for ensuring that software + packaged for Debian is bitwise reproducible. As mentioned in the + discussion section of this paper, the bitwise reproducibility of software is + not an issue in the context discussed here; the reproducibility of the + relevant output data of the software is the main issue. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +12. [Reviewer 1] Existing guidelines similar to the proposed "Criteria + for longevity". Many articles of these in the form "10 simple + rules for X", for example (not exhaustive list): + * https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 + * https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08055 + * https://osf.io/fsd7t/ + * A model project for reproducible papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2000 + * Executable/reproducible paper articles and original concepts + +ANSWER: Thank you for highlighting these points. Appendix B starts with a +subsection titled "suggested rules, checklists or criteria". In this +section, we review the existing sets of criteria. This subsection includes +the sources proposed by the reviewer [Sandve et al; Rule et al; Nust et al] +(and others). + +ArXiv:1401.2000 has been added in Appendix A as an example paper using +virtual machines. We thank the referee for bringing up this paper, because +the link to the VM provided in the paper no longer works (the URL +http://archive.comp-phys.org/provenance_challenge/provenance_machine.ova +redirects to +https://share.phys.ethz.ch//~alpsprovenance_challenge/provenance_machine.ova +which gives a 'Not Found' html response). Together with SHARE, this very +nicely highlights our main issue with binary containers or VMs: their lack +of longevity due to the high cost of long term storage of large files. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +13. [Reviewer 1] Several claims in the manuscript are not properly + justified, neither in the text nor via citation. Examples (not + exhaustive list): + 1. "it is possible to precisely identify the Docker “images” that + are imported with their checksums, but that is rarely practiced + in most solutions that we have surveyed [which ones?]" + 2. "Other OSes [which ones?] have similar issues because pre-built + binary files are large and expensive to maintain and archive." + 3. "Researchers using free software tools have also already had + some exposure to it" + 4. "A popular framework typically falls out of fashion and + requires significant resources to translate or rewrite every + few years." + +ANSWER: These points have been clarified in the highlighted parts of the text: + +1. Many examples have been given throughout the newly added + appendices. To avoid confusion in the main body of the paper, we + have removed the "we have surveyed" part. It is already mentioned + above this point in the text that a large survey of existing + methods/solutions is given in the appendices. + +2. Due to the thorough discussion of this issue in the appendices with + precise examples, this line has been removed to allow space for the + other points raised by the referees. The main point (high cost of + keeping binaries) is already abundantly clear. + + On a similar topic, Dockerhub's recent announcement that inactive images + (for over 6 months) will be deleted has also been added. The announcemnt + URL is a hyperlink in the text (it was too long to print directly, if + IEEE has a special short-url format, we can add it). + + Another interesting News in relation to longevity has also been added + here: the decision by CentOS to abandon CentOS 8 next year. Again, the + URL is within a hyperlink on the text. Many scientific and industrial + projects have relied on CentOS for longevity over the last two decades, + but that didn't stop its creators from abandoning it 8 years early and + completely switching its release paradigm. + +3. A small statement has been added, reminding the readers that almost all + free software projects are built with Make (CMake is also used + sometimes, but CMake is just a high-level wrapper over Make: it finally + produces a 'Makefile'; practical usage of CMake generally obliges the + user to understand Make). + +4. The example of Python 2 has been added to clarify this point. + + +------------------------------ + + + + + +14. [Reviewer 1] As mentioned in the discussion by the authors, not + even Bash, Git or Make is reproducible, thus not even Maneage can + address the longevity requirements. One possible alternative is + the use of CI to ensure that papers are re-executable (several + papers have been written on this topic). Note that CI is + well-established technology (e.g. Jenkins is almost 10 years old). + +ANSWER: Thank you for raising these issues. We had initially planned to +discuss CIs, but like many discussion points, we were forced to remove it +before the first submission due to the very tight word-count limit. We have +now added a sentence on CI in the discussion. + +On the issue of Bash/Git/Make, indeed, the executable built files of Bash, +Git and Make binaries are not bitwise reproducible/identical on different +systems. However, as mentioned in the discussion, we are concerned with the +_output_ of the software's executable file. We are not interested in the +executable file itself (which should be different for different OSs or CPU +architectures). + +The reproducibility of a binary file only becomes important for security +purposes where binaries are downloaded. In Maneage, we download the +software source code tarball, confirm the tarball's SHA512 checksum with +the checksum that is recorded in Maneage [1], and build the software with +precisely defined build environment and dependencies. + +In summary, even though the compiled binary files of specific versions of +Git, Bash or Make will not be bitwise reproducible/identical on different +systems, their scientific outputs are exactly reproducible: 'git describe' +or Bash's 'for' loop will have the same output on GNU/Linux, macOS/Darwin +or FreeBSD (despite having bit-wise different executables). + +[1] http://git.maneage.org/project.git/tree/reproduce/software/config/checksums.conf + +------------------------------ + + + + + +15. [Reviewer 1] Criterion has been proposed previously. Maneage itself + provides little novelty (see comments below). + +ANSWER: The previously suggested sets of criteria that were listed by +Reviewer 1 are reviewed by us in the newly added Appendix B, and the +novelty and advantages of our proposed criteria are contrasted there +with the earlier sets of criteria. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +16. [Reviewer 2] Authors should add indication that using good practices it + is possible to use Docker or VM to obtain identical OS usable for + reproducible research. + +ANSWER: In the submitted version we had stated that "Ideally, it is +possible to precisely identify the Docker images that are imported with +their checksums ...". But to be more clear and go directly to the point, it +has been edited to explicity say "... to recreate an identical OS image +later". + +------------------------------ + + + + + +17. [Reviewer 2] The CPU architecture of the platform used to run the + workflow is not discussed in the manuscript. Authors should probably + take into account the architecture used in their workflow or at least + report it. + +ANSWER: Thank you very much for raising this important point. We hadn't +seen other reproducibility papers mention this important point and thus +missed it. In the acknowledgments (where we also mention the commit hashes) +we now explicitly mention the exact CPU architecture used to build this +paper: "This project was built on an x86_64 machine with Little Endian +byte-order and address sizes 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual.". This is +because we have already seen cases where the architecture is the same, but +programs fail because of the byte order. + +Generally, Maneage will now extract this information from the running +system during its configuration phase, and provide the users with three +different LaTeX macros that contain this information. Users can use these +LaTeX macros anywhere in their paper. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +18. [Reviewer 2] I don’t understand the "no dependency beyond + POSIX". Authors should more explained what they mean by this sentence. + +ANSWER: This has been clarified with the short extra statement "a minimal +Unix-like standard that is shared between many operating systems". Also in +the appendix we now say "no execution requirement beyond a minimal +Unix-like operating system". + +We would have liked to explain this more, but the word limit is very +constraining. It is more clear in the appendices, and we will put more +clear explations in teh web page. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +19. [Reviewer 2] Unfortunately, sometime we need proprietary or specialized + software to read raw data... For example in genetics, micro-array raw + data are stored in binary proprietary formats. To convert this data + into a plain text format, we need the proprietary software provided + with the measurement tool. + +ANSWER: Thank you very much for this good point. A description of a +possible solution to this has been added after criterion 8. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +20. [Reviewer 2] I was not able to properly set up a project with + Maneage. The configuration step failed during the download of tools + used in the workflow. This is probably due to a firewall/antivirus + restriction out of my control. How frequent this failure happen to + users? + +ANSWER: Thank you for mentioning this. This has been fixed by archiving all +Maneage'd software on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3883409) and +also downloading them from there as highest precedence. + +Until recently we would directly access each software's own webpage to +download the source files, and this caused frequent problems of the type +you mentioned (different servers in different ISPs/states/countries can +behave differentely). In other cases, we were very frustrated when a +software's webpage would temporarily be unavailable (e.g., for maintenance +reasons); this was a major hindrance in building new projects. + +Since all the software is free-licensed, we are legally allowed to +re-distribute them (within the conditions, such as not removing copyright +notices) and Zenodo is defined for long-term archival of academic digital +objects, so we decided that a software source code repository on Zenodo +would be the most reliable solution. At configure time, Maneage now +accesses Zenodo's DOI and resolves the most recent URL to automatically +download any necessary software source code that the project needs from +there. + +Generally, we also keep all software in a Git repository on our own +webpage: http://git.maneage.org/tarballs-software.git/tree. Also, Maneage +users can identify their own custom URLs for downloading software, which +will be given higher priority than Zenodo (useful for situations when +custom software is downloaded and built in a project branch (not the core +'maneage' branch). + +------------------------------ + + + + + +21. [Reviewer 2] The time to configure a new project is quite long because + everything needs to be compiled. Authors should compare the time + required to set up a project Maneage versus time used by other + workflows to give an indication to the readers. + +ANSWER: Thank you for raising this point. it takes about 1.5 hours to +configure the default Maneage branch on an 8-core CPU (more than half of +this time is devoted to GCC on GNU/Linux operating systems, and the +building of GCC can optionally be disabled with the '--host-cc' option to +significantly speed up the build when the host's GCC is +similar). Furthermore, Maneage can be built within a Docker container. + +A paragraph has been added in Section IV on this issue (the +build time and building within a Docker container). We have also defined +task #15818 [1] to have our own core Docker image that is ready to build a +Maneaged project and will be adding it shortly. + +[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?15818 + +------------------------------ + + + + + +22. [Reviewer 3] Authors should define their use of the term [Replicability + or Reproducibility] briefly for their readers. + +ANSWER: "Reproducibility" has been defined along with "Longevity" and +"usage" at the start of Section II. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +23. [Reviewer 3] The introduction is consistent with the proposal of the + article, but deals with the tools separately, many of which can be used + together to minimize some of the problems presented. The use of + Ansible, Helm, among others, also helps in minimizing problems. + +ANSWER: That is correct. In the new appendices we have touched upon this, +especially in Appendix B where we discuss the technologies used by various +reproducible workflow solutions. + +About Ansible and Helm; they are primarily designed for distributed +computing. For example Helm is just a high-level package manager for a +Kubernetes cluster that is based on containers. A review of them could be +added to the Appendices, but we feel they this would distract somewhat from +the main points of our current paper. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +24. [Reviewer 3] When the authors use the Python example, I believe it is + interesting to point out that today version 2 has been discontinued by + the maintaining community, which creates another problem within the + perspective of the article. + +ANSWER: Thank you very much for highlighting this point. We had excluded +this point for the sake of article length, but we have restored it in +the introduction of the revised version. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +25. [Reviewer 3] Regarding the use of VM's and containers, I believe that + the discussion presented by THAIN et al., 2015 is interesting to + increase essential points of the current work. + +ANSWER: Thank you very much for pointing out the works by Thain. We +couldn't find any first-author papers in 2015, but found Meng & Thain +(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.116) which had a relevant +discussion of why they didn't use Docker containers in their work. That +paper is now cited in the discussion of Containers in Appendix A. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +26. [Reviewer 3] About the Singularity, the description article was missing + (Kurtzer GM, Sochat V, Bauer MW, 2017). + +ANSWER: Thank you for the reference. We are restricted in the main +body of the paper due to the strict bibliography limit of 12 +references; we have included Kurtzer et al 2017 in Appendix A (where +we discuss Singularity). + +------------------------------ + + + + + +27. [Reviewer 3] I also believe that a reference to FAIR is interesting + (WILKINSON et al., 2016). + +ANSWER: The FAIR principles have been mentioned in the main body of the +paper, but unfortunately we had to remove its citation in the main paper (like +many others) to keep to the maximum of 12 references. We have cited it in +Appendix B. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +28. [Reviewer 3] In my opinion, the paragraph on IPOL seems to be out of + context with the previous ones. This issue of end-to-end + reproducibility of a publication could be better explored, which would + further enrich the tool presented. + + +ANSWER: We agree and have removed the IPOL example from that section. We +have included an in-depth discussion of IPOL in Appendix B and we comment +on how Maneage'd projects offer a similar level of peer-review control. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +29. [Reviewer 3] On the project website, I suggest that the information + contained in README-hacking be presented on the same page as the + Tutorial. A topic breakdown is interesting, as the markdown reading may + be too long to find information. + +ANSWER: Thank you very much for this good suggestion, it has been +implemented: https://maneage.org/about.html . The webpage will continuously +be improved and such feedback is always very welcome. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +31. [Reviewer 3] The tool is suitable for Unix users, keeping users away + from Microsoft environments. + +ANSWER: The issue of building on Windows has been discussed in Section IV, +either using Docker (or VMs) or using the Windows Subsystem for Linux. + +------------------------------ + + + + +32. [Reviewer 3] Important references are missing; more references are + needed + +ANSWER: Two comprehensive Appendices have been added to address this issue. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +33. [Reviewer 4] Revisit the criteria, show how you have come to decide on + them, give some examples of why they are important, and address + potential missing criteria. + +ANSWER: In the new appendix B, we have added a new section, reviewing some +existing criteria. We would be very interested to discuss them even further +in the main body, Within the constraints of space (the limit is 6250 +words), it is almost impossible to discuss the history of each in detail or +add more anecdotal examples of their relevance. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +34. [Reviewer 4] Clarify the discussion of challenges to adoption and make + it clearer which tradeoffs are important to practitioners. + +ANSWER: We discuss many of these challenges and caveats in the Discussion +Section (V), within the existing word limit. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +35. [Reviewer 4] Be clearer about which sorts of research workflow are best + suited to this approach. + +ANSWER: Maneage is flexible enough to enable a wide range of workflows to +be implemented. This is done by leveraging the highly modular and flexible +nature of Makefiles run via 'Make'. + +GUI-based operations (that involve human interaction and cannot be run in +batch-mode) are one type of workflow that our proof-of-concept will not +support. But as discussed in the completeness criteria, human interaction +is an incompleteness, dramatically reducing the reproducibility of a +result. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +36. [Reviewer 4] There is also the challenge of mathematical + reproducibility, particularly of the handling of floating point number, + which might occur because of the way the code is written, and the + hardware architecture (including if code is optimised / parallelised). + +ANSWER: Floating point errors and optimizations have been mentioned in the +discussion (Section V). The issue with parallelization has also been +discussed in Section IV, in the part on verification ("Where exact +reproducibility is not possible (for example due to parallelization), +values can be verified by a statistical method specified by the project +authors."). We have linked keywords in the latter sentence to a Software +Heritage URI [1] with the specific file in a Maneage'd paper that +illustrates an example of how statistical verification of parallelised code +can work in practice (Peper & Roukema 2020; zenodo.4062460). + +We would be interested to hear if any other papers already exist that use +automatic statistical verification of parallelised code as has been done in +this Maneage'd paper. + +[1] https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/content/?branch=refs/heads/postreferee_corrections&origin_url=https://codeberg.org/boud/elaphrocentre.git&path=reproduce/analysis/bash/verify-parameter-statistically.sh + +------------------------------ + + + + + +37. [Reviewer 4] ... the handling of floating point number +[reproducibility] ... will come with a tradeoff agianst performance, which +is never mentioned. + +ANSWER: The criteria we propose and the proof-of-concept with Maneage do +not force the choice of a tradeoff between exact bitwise floating point +reproducibility versus performance (e.g. speed). The specific concepts of +"verification" and "reproducibility" will vary between domains of +scientific computation, but we expect that the criteria allow this wide +range. + +Performance is indeed an important issue for _immediate_ reproducibility +and we would have liked to discuss it. But due to the strict word-count, we +feel that adding it to the discussion points, without having adequate space +to elaborate, can confuse the readers away from the focus of this paper (on +long term usability). It has therefore not been added. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +38. [Reviewer 4] Tradeoff, which might affect Criterion 3 is time to result, + people use popular frameworks because it is easier to use them. + +ANSWER: That is true. In section IV, we have given the time it takes to +build Maneage (only once on each computer) to be around 1.5 hours on an +8-core CPU (a typical machine that may be used for data analysis). We +therefore conclude that when the analysis is complex (and thus taking many +hours, or even days to complete), this time is negligible. + +But if the project's full analysis takes 10 minutes or less (like the +extremely simple analysis done in this paper). Indeed, the 1.5 hour +building time is significant. In those cases, as discussed in the main +body, the project can be built once in a Docker image and easily moved to +other computers. + +Generally, it is true that the initial configuration time (only once on +each computer) of a Maneage install may discourage some scientists; but a +serious scientific research project is never started and completed on a +time scale of a few hours. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +39. [Reviewer 4] I would liked to have seen explanation of how these + challenges to adoption were identified: was this anecdotal, through + surveys? participant observation? + +ANSWER: The results mentioned here are anecdotal: based on private +discussions after holding multiple seminars and Webinars with RDA's +support, and also a workshop that was planned for non-astronomers. We +invited (funded) early career researchers to come to the workshop with the +RDA funding. However, that workshop was cancelled due to the COVID-19 +pandemic and we had private communications instead. + +We would very much like to elaborate on this experience of training new +researchers with these tools. However, as with many of the cases above, the +very strict word-limit doesn't allow us to elaborate beyond what we have +already written. Hopefully in a couple of years and with the wider usage of +Maneage or these criteria in research papers, we will be able to write a +paper that is directly focused on this. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +40. [Reviewer 4] Potentially an interesting sidebar to investigate how + LaTeX/TeX has ensured its longevity! + +ANSWER: That is indeed a very interesting subject to study (an obvious link +is that LaTeX/TeX is very strongly based on plain text files). We have been +in touch with Karl Berry (one of the core people behind TeX Live, who also +plays a prominent role in GNU) and have whitnessed the TeX Live community's +efforts to become more and more portable and longer-lived. + +However, as the reviewer states, this would be a sidebar, and we are +constrained for space, so we couldn't find a place to highlight this. But +it is indeed a subject worthy of a full paper (that can be very useful for +many software projects). + +------------------------------ + + + + + +41. [Reviewer 4] The title is not specific enough - it should refer to the + reproducibility of workflows/projects. + +ANSWER: A problem here is that "workflow" and "project" taken in isolation +risk being vague for wider audiences. Also, we aim at covering a wider +range of aspects of a project than just than the workflow alone; in the +other direction, the word "project" could be seen as too broad, including +the funding, principal investigator, and team coordination. + +A specific title that might be appropriate could be, for example, "Towards +long-term and archivable reproducibility of scientific computational +research projects". Using a term proposed by one of our reviewers, "Towards +long-term and archivable end-to-end reproducibility of scientific +computational research projects" might also be appropriate. + +Nevertheless, we feel that in the context of an article published in CiSE, +our current short title is sufficient. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +42. [Reviewer 4] Whilst the thesis stated is valid, it may not be useful to + practitioners of computation science and engineering as it stands. + +ANSWER: This point appears to refer to floating point bitwise +reproducibility and possibly to the conciseness of our paper. The former is +fully allowed for, as stated above, though not obligatory, using the +"verify.mk" rule file to (typically, but not obligatorily) force bitwise +reproducibility. The latter is constrained by the 6250-word limit of +CiSE. The addition of supplementary appendices in the extended version help +respond to the latter point. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +43. [Reviewer 4] Longevity is not defined. + +ANSWER: This has been defined now at the start of Section II. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +44. [Reviewer 4] Whilst various tools are discussed and discarded, no + attempt is made to categorise the magnitude of longevity for which they + are relevant. For instance, environment isolators are regarded by the + software preservation community as adequate for timescale of the order + of years, but may not be suitable for the timescale of decades where + porting and emulation are used. + +ANSWER: Statements on quantifying the longevity of specific tools have been +added in Section II and are highlighted in green. For example in the case +of Docker images: "their longevity is determined by the host kernel, +usually a decade", for Python packages: "Python installation with a usual +longevity of a few years", for Nix/Guix: "with considerably better +longevity; same as supported CPU architectures." + +------------------------------ + + + + + +45. [Reviewer 4] The title of this section "Commonly used tools and their + longevity" is confusing - do you mean the longevity of the tools or the + longevity of the workflows that can be produced using these tools? + What happens if you use a combination of all four categories of tools? + +ANSWER: We have changed the section title to "Longevity of existing tools" +to clarify that we refer to longevity of the tools. + +If the four categories of tools were combined, then the overall longevity +would be that of the shortest intersection of the time spans over which the +tools remained viable. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +46. [Reviewer 4] It wasn't clear to me if code was being run to generate + the results and figures in a LaTeX paper that is part of a project in + Maneage. It appears to be suggested this is the case, but Figure 1 + doesn't show how this works - it just has the LaTeX files, the data + files and the Makefiles. Is it being suggested that LaTeX itself is the + programming language, using its macro functionality? + +ANSWER: Thank you for highlighting this point of confusion. The caption of +Figure 1 has been edited to hopefully clarify the point. In short, the +arrows represent the operation of software and boxes represent files. In +the case of generating 'paper.pdf' from its three dependencies +('references.tex', 'paper.tex' and 'project.tex'), yes, LaTeX is used. But +in other steps, other tools are used (depending on the analysis). For +example as you see in [1] the main step of the arrow connecting +'table-3.txt' to 'tools-per-year.txt' is an AWK command (there are also a +few 'echo' commands for meta data and copyright in the output plain-text +file [2]). + +[1] https://gitlab.com/makhlaghi/maneage-paper/-/blob/master/reproduce/analysis/make/demo-plot.mk#L51 +[2] https://zenodo.org/record/3911395/files/tools-per-year.txt + +------------------------------ + + + + + +47. [Reviewer 4] I was a bit confused on how collaboration is handled as + well - this appears to be using the Git branching model, and the + suggestion that Maneage is keeping track of all components from all + projects - but what happens if you are working with collaborators that + are using their own Maneage instance? + +ANSWER: Indeed, Maneage operates based on the Git branching model. As +mentioned in the text, Maneage is itself a Git branch. Researchers spin-off +their own branch for a specific project from the 'maneage' branch and start +customizing it for their particular project in their own particular +repository. They can also use all types of Git-based collaborating models +to work together on their branch. + +Figure 2 in fact explicitly shows such a case: the main project leader is +committing on the "project" branch. But a collaborator creates a separate +branch over commit '01dd812' and makes a couple of commits ('f69e1f4' and +'716b56b'), and finally asks the project leader to merge them into the +project. This can be generalized to any Git based collaboration model. + +Recent experience by one of us [Roukema] found that a merge of a +Maneage-based cosmology simulation project (now zenodo.4062460), after +separate evolution of about 30-40 commits on maneage and possibly 100 on +the project, needed about one day of straightforward effort, without any +major difficulties. So it is easy to update low-level infrastructure. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +48. [Reviewer 4] I would also [have] liked to have seen a comparison + between this approach and other "executable" paper approaches + e.g. Jupyter notebooks, compared on completeness, time taken to + write a "paper", ease of depositing in a repository, and ease of + use by another researcher. + +ANSWER: This type of sociological survey will make sense once the number of +projects run with Maneage is sufficiently high and comparable to Jupyter +for example. The time taken to write a paper is be measurable +automatically: from the git history. The other parameters suggested would +require cooperation from the scientists in responding to the survey, or +will have to be collected anecdotally in the short term. This is a good +subject for a follow-up paper in a few years. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +49. [Reviewer 4] The weakest aspect is the assumption that research can be + easily compartmentalized into simple and complete packages. Given that + so much of research involves collaboration and interaction, this is not + sufficiently addressed. In particular, the challenge of + interdisciplinary work, where there may not be common languages to + describe concepts and there may be different common workflow practices + will be a barrier to wider adoption of the primary thesis and criteria. + +ANSWER: Maneage was precisely defined to address the problem of +publishing/collaborating on complete workflows by many people (in this +paper itself, we are already 6 people who have been collaborating to +complete it and you can see this in the Git history). Git has been +exceptionally powerful in enabling collaborations of huge projects with +thousands of contributors like the Linux kernel. Exactly the same +collaborating style of the Linux kernel can be implemented in Maneage for +large scientific projects. + +Hopefully with the clarification to point 47 above, this should also become +clear. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +50. [Reviewer 5] Major figures currently working in this exact field do not + have their work acknowledged in this work. + +ANSWER: This was due to the strict word limit and the CiSE publication +policy (to not include a literature review because there is a limit of only +12 citations). But we had indeed already done a comprehensive literature +review and the editors kindly agreed that we submit that review as +supplementary appendices. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +51. [Reviewer 5] Jimenez I et al ... 2017 "The popper convention: Making + reproducible systems evaluation practical ..." and the later + revision that uses GitHub Actions, is largely the same as this + work. + +ANSWER: This work and the proposed criteria are very different from +Popper. A detailed review of Popper, in particular, is given in Appendix B. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +52. [Reviewer 5] The lack of attention to virtual machines and containers + is highly problematic. While a reader cannot rely on DockerHub or a + generic OS version label for a VM or container, these are some of the + most promising tools for offering true reproducibility. + +ANSWER: Containers and VMs have been more thoroughly discussed in the main +body and also extensively discussed in appendix A. As discussed (with many +cited examples), Containers and VMs are only appropriate when they are +themselves reproducible (for example, if running the Dockerfile this year +and next year gives the same internal environment). However, we show that +this is not the case in most solutions (a more comprehensive review would +require its own paper). + +Moreover, with complete, robust environment builders like Maneage, Nix or +GNU Guix, the analysis environment within a container can be exactly +reproduced later. But even so, due to their binary nature and large storage +volume, they are not trusable sources for the long term (it is expensive to +archive them). We show several examples in the paper and appendices of how +projects that relied on VMs in 2011 and 2014 are no longer active, and how +even Dockerhub will be deleting containers that are not used for more than +6 months in free accounts (due to the high storage costs). + +Furthermore, as a unique new feature, Maneage has the criterion of "Minimal +complexity". This means that even if, for any reason, the project is not +able to be run in the future, the content, analysis scripts, etc. are +accessible for the interested reader as plain text (only the development +history - the git history - is storied in git's binary format). Unlike Nix +or Guix, our approach doesn't need a third-party package package manager: +the instructions for building all the software of a project are directly in +the same project as the high-level analysis software. The full end-to-end +process is transparent and archived in Maneage, and the interested +scientist can follow the analysis and study the different decisions of each +step (why and how the analysis was done). They can also modify it to work +on future hardware that we don't know about today (this is not possible on +a binary file like VMs or containers). + +------------------------------ + + + + + +53. [Reviewer 5] On the data side, containers have the promise to manage + data sets and workflows completely [Lofstead J, Baker J, Younge A. Data + pallets: containerizing storage for reproducibility and + traceability. InInternational Conference on High Performance Computing + 2019 Jun 16 (pp. 36-45). Springer, Cham.] Taufer has picked up this + work and has graduated a MS student working on this topic with a + published thesis. See also Jimenez's P-RECS workshop at HPDC for + additional work highly relevant to this paper. + +ANSWER: Thank you for the interesting paper by Lofstead+2019 on Data +pallets. We have cited it in Appendix A as an example of how generic the +concept of containers is. + +The topic of linking data to analysis is also a core result of the criteria +presented here, and is also discussed briefly in our paper. There are +indeed many very interesting works on this topic. But the format of CiSE is +very short (a maximum of ~6500 words with 12 references), so we don't have +the space to go into this any further. But this is indeed a very +interesting aspect for follow-up studies, especially as usage of +Maneage grows, and we have more example workflows by users to study the +linkage of data analysis. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +54. [Reviewer 5] Some other systems that do similar things include: + reprozip, occam, whole tale, snakemake. + +ANSWER: All these tools have been reviewed in the newly added appendices. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +55. [Reviewer 5] the paper needs to include the context of the current + community development level to be a complete research paper. A revision + that includes evaluation of (using the criteria) and comparison with + the suggested systems and a related work section that seriously + evaluates the work of the recommended authors, among others, would make + this paper worthy for publication. + +ANSWER: A thorough review of current low-level tools and and high-level +reproducible workflow management systems has been added in the extended +Appendices. + +------------------------------ + + + + + + +56. [Reviewer 5] Yet another example of a reproducible workflows project. + +ANSWER: As the newly added thorough comparisons with existing systems +shows, these set of criteria and the proof-of-concept offer uniquely new +features. As another referee summarized: "This manuscript describes a new +reproducible workflow _which doesn't require another new trendy high-level +software_. The proposed workflow is only based on low-level tools already +widely known." + +Interestingly, the fact that we don't define yet another workflow language +and framework is itself what makes our proof-of-concept unique. Other +unique features of Maneage is that it is based on time-tested solutions +(the youngest tool we use it Git which is already 15 years old) in a +framwork that costs only ~100 kB to archive (in contrast to multi-GB +containers or VMs). + +------------------------------ + + + + + +57. [Reviewer 5] There are numerous examples, mostly domain specific, and + this one is not the most advanced general solution. + +ANSWER: As the comparisons in the appendices and clarifications above show, +there are many features in the proposed criteria and proof of concept that +are new and not satisfied by the domain-specific solutions known to us. + +------------------------------ + + + + + +58. [Reviewer 5] Lack of context in the field missing very relevant work + that eliminates much, if not all, of the novelty of this work. + +ANSWER: The newly added appendices thoroughly describe the context and +previous work that has been done in this field. + +------------------------------ diff --git a/peer-review/1-review.txt b/peer-review/1-review.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..16e227b --- /dev/null +++ b/peer-review/1-review.txt @@ -0,0 +1,788 @@ +From: cise computer org +To: mohammad akhlaghi org, + infantesainz gmail com, + boud astro uni torun pl, + david valls-gabaud observatoiredeparis psl eu, + rbaena iac es +Received: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:28:21 -0400 +Subject: Computing in Science and Engineering, CiSESI-2020-06-0048 + major revision required + +-------------------------------------------------- + +Computing in Science and Engineering,CiSESI-2020-06-0048 +"Towards Long-term and Archivable Reproducibility" +manuscript type: Reproducible Research + +Dear Dr. Mohammad Akhlaghi, + +The manuscript that you submitted to Computing in Science and Engineering +has completed the review process. After carefully examining the manuscript +and reviews, we have decided that the manuscript needs major revisions +before it can be considered for a second review. + +Your revision is due before 22-Oct-2020. Please note that if your paper was +submitted to a special issue, this due date may be different. Contact the +peer review administrator, Ms. Jessica Ingle, at cise computer.org if you +have questions. + +The reviewer and editor comments are attached below for your +reference. Please maintain our 6,250–word limit as you make your revisions. + +To upload your revision and summary of changes, log on to +https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cise-cs, click on your Author Center, then +"Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," choose "Create a Revision" +next to the manuscript number. + +Highlight the changes to your manuscript by using the track changes mode in +MS Word, the latexdiff package if using LaTex, or by using bold or colored +text. + +When submitting your revised manuscript, you will need to respond to the +reviewer comments in the space provided. + +If you have questions regarding our policies or procedures, please refer to +the magazines' Author Information page linked from the Instructions and +Forms (top right corner of the ScholarOne Manuscripts screen) or you can +contact me. + +We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. + +Sincerely, +Dr. Lorena A. Barba +George Washington University +Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering +Editor-in-Chief, Computing in Science and Engineering + +-------------------------------------------------- + + + + + +EiC comments: +Some reviewers request additions, and overview of other tools, etc. In +doing your revision, please remember space limitations: 6,250 words +maximum, including all main body, abstract, keyword, bibliography (12 +references or less), and biography text. See "Write For Us" section of the +website: https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/cs + +Comments of the Associate Editor: Associate Editor +Comments to the Author: Thank to the authors for your submission to the +Reproducible Research department. + +Thanks to the reviewers for your careful and thoughtful reviews. We would +appreciate it if you can make your reports available and share the DOI as +soon as possible, per our original invitation e-mail. We will follow up our +original invitation to obtain your review DOI, if you have not already +included it in your review comments. + +Based on the review feedback, there are a number of major issues that +require attention and many minor ones as well. Please take these into +account as you prepare your major revision for another round of +review. (See the actual review reports for details.) + +1. In general, there are a number of presentation issues needing +attention. There are general concerns about the paper lacking focus. Some +terminology is not well-defined (e.g. longevity). In addition, the +discussion of tools could benefit from some categorization to characterize +their longevity. Background and related efforts need significant +improvement. (See below.) + +2. There is consistency among the reviews that related work is particularly +lacking and not taking into account major works that have been written on +this topic. See the reviews for details about work that could potentially +be included in the discussion and how the current work is positioned with +respect to this work. + +3. The current work needs to do a better job of explaining how it deals +with the nagging problem of running on CPU vs. different architectures. At +least one review commented on the need to include a discussion of +continuous integration (CI) and its potential to help identify problems +running on different architectures. Is CI employed in any way in the work +presented in this article? + +4. The presentation of the Maneage tool is both lacking in clarity and +consistency with the public information/documentation about the tool. While +our review focus is on the article, it is important that readers not be +confused when they visit your site to use your tools. + +5. A significant question raised by one review is how this work compares to +"executable" papers and Jupyter notebooks. Does this work embody +similar/same design principles or expand upon the established alternatives? +In any event, a discussion of this should be included in +background/motivation and related work to help readers understand the clear +need for a new approach, if this is being presented as new/novel. + +Reviews: + +Please note that some reviewers may have included additional comments in a +separate file. If a review contains the note "see the attached file" under +Section III A - Public Comments, you will need to log on to ScholarOne +Manuscripts to view the file. After logging in, select the Author Center, +click on the "Manuscripts with Decisions" queue and then click on the "view +decision letter" link for this manuscript. You must scroll down to the very +bottom of the letter to see the file(s), if any. This will open the file +that the reviewer(s) or the Associate Editor included for you along with +their review. + +-------------------------------------------------- + + + + + +Reviewer: 1 +Recommendation: Author Should Prepare A Major Revision For A Second Review + +Comments: + + * Adding an explicit list of contributions would make it easier to the + reader to appreciate these. + + * These are not mentioned/cited and are highly relevant to this paper (in + no particular order): + + * Git flows, both in general and in particular for research. + * Provenance work, in general and with git in particular + * Reprozip: https://www.reprozip.org/ + * OCCAM: https://occam.cs.pitt.edu/ + * Popper: http://getpopper.io/ + * Whole Tale: https://wholetale.org/ + * Snakemake: https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake + * CWL https://www.commonwl.org/ and WDL https://openwdl.org/ + * Nextflow: https://www.nextflow.io/ + * Sumatra: https://pythonhosted.org/Sumatra/ + * Podman: https://podman.io + * AppImage (https://appimage.org/), Flatpack + (https://flatpak.org/), Snap (https://snapcraft.io/) + * nbdev https://github.com/fastai/nbdev and jupytext + * Bazel: https://bazel.build/ + * Debian reproducible builds: https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds + + * Existing guidelines similar to the proposed "Criteria for + longevity". Many articles of these in the form "10 simple rules for + X", for example (not exhaustive list): + * https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 + * https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08055 + * https://osf.io/fsd7t/ + + * A model project for reproducible papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2000 + + * Executable/reproducible paper articles and original concepts + + * Several claims in the manuscript are not properly justified, neither in + the text nor via citation. Examples (not exhaustive list): + + * "it is possible to precisely identify the Docker “images” that are + imported with their checksums, but that is rarely practiced in most + solutions that we have surveyed [which ones?]" + + * "Other OSes [which ones?] have similar issues because pre-built + binary files are large and expensive to maintain and archive." + + * "Researchers using free software tools have also already had some + exposure to it" + + * "A popular framework typically falls out of fashion and requires + significant resources to translate or rewrite every few years." + + * As mentioned in the discussion by the authors, not even Bash, Git or + Make is reproducible, thus not even Maneage can address the longevity + requirements. One possible alternative is the use of CI to ensure that + papers are re-executable (several papers have been written on this + topic). Note that CI is well-established technology (e.g. Jenkins is + almost 10 years old). + +Additional Questions: + +1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical? + Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Very + Relevant + +2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?: + The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world + +1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and + the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical.: This + article introduces desiderata for long-term archivable reproduciblity + and presents Maneage, a system whose goal is to achieve these outlined + properties. + +2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the + Detailed Comments section.: Partially + +3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in + this field?: Presentation of Maneage + +4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: A great + summary of Maneage, as well as its implementaiton. + +5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: Criterion has + been proposed previously. Maneage itself provides little novelty (see + comments below). + +1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes + +2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in + the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references + (maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Important references are + missing; more references are needed + +4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your + answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Could be improved + +5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate + in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments + section.: Satisfactory + +7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the + Detailed Comments section.: Easy to read + +9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this + manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all + that apply.: Topic and content are of limited interest to CiSE readers. + +Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments +section.: Good + +-------------------------------------------------- + + + + + +Reviewer: 2 +Recommendation: Accept If Certain Minor Revisions Are Made + +Comments: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159724632.29528907 + +Operating System: Authors mention that Docker is usually used with an image +of Ubuntu without precision about the version used. And Even if users take +care about the version, the image is updated monthly thus the image used +will have different OS components based on the generation time. This +difference in OS components will interfere on the reproducibility. I agree +on that, but I would like to add that it is a wrong habit of users. It is +possible to generate reproducible Docker images by generating it from an +ISO image of the OS. These ISO images are archived, at least for Ubuntu +(http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases) and for Debian +(https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive) thus allow users to +generate an OS with identical components. Combined with the +snapshot.debian.org service, it is even possible to update a Debian release +to a specific time point up to 2005 and with a precision of six hours. With +combination of both ISO image and snapshot.debian.org service it is +possible to obtain an OS for Docker or for a VM with identical components +even if users have to use the PM of the OS. Authors should add indication +that using good practices it is possible to use Docker or VM to obtain +identical OS usable for reproducible research. + +CPU architecture: The CPU architecture of the platform used to run the +workflow is not discussed in the manuscript. During software integration in +Debian, I have seen several software failing their unit tests due to +different behavior from itself or from a library dependency. This not +expected behavior was only present on non-x86 architectures, mainly because +developers use a x86 machine for their developments and tests. Bug or +feature? I don’t know, but nowadays, it is quite frequent to see computers +with a non-x86 CPU. It would be annoying to fail the reproducibility step +because of a different in CPU architecture. Authors should probably take +into account the architecture used in their workflow or at least report it. + +POSIX dependency: I don’t understand the "no dependency beyond +POSIX". Authors should more explained what they mean by this sentence. I +completely agree that the dependency hell must be avoided and dependencies +should be used with parsimony. Unfortunately, sometime we need proprietary +or specialized software to read raw data. For example in genetics, +micro-array raw data are stored in binary proprietary formats. To convert +this data into a plain text format, we need the proprietary software +provided with the measurement tool. + +Maneage: I was not able to properly set up a project with Maneage. The +configuration step failed during the download of tools used in the +workflow. This is probably due to a firewall/antivirus restriction out of +my control. How frequent this failure happen to users? Moreover, the time +to configure a new project is quite long because everything needs to be +compiled. Authors should compare the time required to set up a project +Maneage versus time used by other workflows to give an indication to the +readers. + +Disclaimer: For the sake of transparency, it should be noted that I am +involved in the development of Debian, thus my comments are probably +oriented. + +Additional Questions: + +1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical? + Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Relevant + +2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?: + The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world + +1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and + the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical.: The + authors describe briefly the history of solutions proposed by + researchers to generate reproducible workflows. Then, they report the + problems with the current tools used to tackle the reproducible + problem. They propose a set of criteria to develop new reproducible + workflows and finally they describe their proof of concept workflow + called "Maneage". This manuscript could help researchers to improve + their workflow to obtain reproducible results. + +2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the + Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in + this field?: The authors try to propose a simple answer to the + reproducibility problem by defining new criteria. They also propose a + proof of concept workflow which can be directly used by researchers for + their projects. + +4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: This + manuscript describes a new reproducible workflow which doesn't require + another new trendy high-level software. The proposed workflow is only + based on low-level tools already widely known. Moreover, the workflow + takes into account the version of all software used in the chain of + dependencies. + +5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: Authors don't + discuss the problem of results reproducibility when analysis are + performed using CPU with different architectures. Some libraries have + different behaviors when they ran on different architectures and it + could influence final results. Authors are probably talking about x86, + but there is no reference at all in the manuscript. + +1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes + +2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in + the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references + (maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: References are sufficient + and appropriate + +4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your + answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate + in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments + section.: Satisfactory + +7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the + Detailed Comments section.: Easy to read + +9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this + manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all + that apply.: Topic and content are of immediate and continuing interest + to CiSE readers + +Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments +section.: Good + +-------------------------------------------------- + + + + + +Reviewer: 3 +Recommendation: Accept If Certain Minor Revisions Are Made + +Comments: Longevity of workflows in a project is one of the problems for +reproducibility in different fields of computational research. Therefore, a +proposal that seeks to guarantee this longevity becomes relevant for the +entire community, especially when it is based on free software and is easy +to access and implement. + +GOODMAN et al., 2016, BARBA, 2018 and PLESSER, 2018 observed in their +research that the terms reproducibility and replicability are frequently +found in the scientific literature and their use interchangeably ends up +generating confusion due to the authors' lack of clarity. Thus, authors +should define their use of the term briefly for their readers. + +The introduction is consistent with the proposal of the article, but deals +with the tools separately, many of which can be used together to minimize +some of the problems presented. The use of Ansible, Helm, among others, +also helps in minimizing problems. When the authors use the Python example, +I believe it is interesting to point out that today version 2 has been +discontinued by the maintaining community, which creates another problem +within the perspective of the article. Regarding the use of VM's and +containers, I believe that the discussion presented by THAIN et al., 2015 +is interesting to increase essential points of the current work. About the +Singularity, the description article was missing (Kurtzer GM, Sochat V, +Bauer MW, 2017). I also believe that a reference to FAIR is interesting +(WILKINSON et al., 2016). + +In my opinion, the paragraph on IPOL seems to be out of context with the +previous ones. This issue of end-to-end reproducibility of a publication +could be better explored, which would further enrich the tool presented. + +The presentation of the longevity criteria was adequate in the context of +the article and explored the points that were dealt with later. + +The presentation of the tool was consistent. On the project website, I +suggest that the information contained in README-hacking be presented on +the same page as the Tutorial. A topic breakdown is interesting, as the +markdown reading may be too long to find information. + +Additional Questions: + +1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical? + Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Relevant + +2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?: + The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world + +1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and + the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical.: In + this article, the authors discuss the problem of the longevity of + computational workflows, presenting what they consider to be criteria + for longevity and an implementation based on these criteria, called + Maneage, seeking to ensure a long lifespan for analysis projects. + +2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the + Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in + this field?: In this article, the authors discuss the problem of the + longevity of computational workflows, presenting what they consider to + be criteria for longevity and an implementation based on these criteria, + called Maneage, seeking to ensure a long lifespan for analysis projects. + + As a key point, the authors enumerate quite clear criteria that can + guarantee the longevity of projects and present a free software-based + way of achieving this objective. The method presented by the authors is + not easy to implement for many end users, with low computer knowledge, + but it can be easily implemented by users with average knowledge in the + area. + +4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: One of the + strengths of the manuscript is the implementation of Maneage entirely in + free software and the search for completeness presented in the + manuscript. The use of GNU software adds the guarantee of long + maintenance by one of the largest existing software communities. In + addition, the tool developed has already been tested in different + publications, showing itself consistent in different scenarios. + +5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: For the + proper functioning of the proposed tool, the user needs prior knowledge + of LaTeX, GIT and the command line, which can keep inexperienced users + away. Likewise, the tool is suitable for Unix users, keeping users away + from Microsoft environments. + + Even though Unix-like environments are the majority in the areas of + scientific computing, many users still perform their analysis in + different areas on Windows computers or servers, with the assistance of + package managers. + +1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes + +2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in + the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references + (maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Important references are + missing; more references are needed + +4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your + answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Could be improved + +5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate + in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments + section.: Could be improved + +7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the + Detailed Comments section.: Easy to read + +9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this + manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all + that apply.: Topic and content are of immediate and continuing interest + to CiSE readers + +Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments +section.: Excellent + +-------------------------------------------------- + + + + + +Reviewer: 4 +Recommendation: Author Should Prepare A Major Revision For A Second Review + +Comments: Overall evaluation - Good. + +This paper is in scope, and the topic is of interest to the readers of +CiSE. However in its present form, I have concerns about whether the paper +presents enough new contributions to the area in a way that can then be +understood and reused by others. The main things I believe need addressing +are: 1) Revisit the criteria, show how you have come to decide on them, +give some examples of why they are important, and address potential missing +criteria. 2) Clarify the discussion of challenges to adoption and make it +clearer which tradeoffs are important to practitioners. 3) Be clearer about +which sorts of research workflow are best suited to this approach. + +B2.Technical soundness: here I am discussing the soundness of the paper, +rather than the soundness of the Maneage tool. There are some fundamental +additional challenges to reproducibility that are not addressed. Although +software library versions are addressed, there is also the challenge of +mathematical reproducibility, particularly of the handling of floating +point number, which might occur because of the way the code is written, and +the hardware architecture (including if code is optimised / +parallelised). This could obviously be addressed through a criterion around +how code is written, but this will also come with a tradeoff against +performance, which is never mentioned. Another tradeoff, which might affect +Criterion 3 is time to result - people use popular frameworks because it is +easier to use them. Regarding the discussion, I would liked to have seen +explanation of how these challenges to adoption were identified: was this +anecdotal, through surveys. participant observation? As a side note around +the technical aspects of Maneage - it is using LaTeX which in turn is built +on TeX which in turn has had many portability problems in the past due to +being written using WEB / Tangle, though with web2c this is largely now +resolved - potentially an interesting sidebar to investigate how LaTeX/TeX +has ensured its longevity! + +C2. The title is not specific enough - it should refer to the +reproducibility of workflows/projects. + +C4. As noted above, whilst the thesis stated is valid, it may not be useful +to practitioners of computation science and engineering as it stands. + +C6. Manuscript focus. I would have liked a more focussed approach to the +presentation of information in II. Longevity is not defined, and whilst +various tools are discussed and discarded, no attempt is made to categorise +the magnitude of longevity for which they are relevant. For instance, +environment isolators are regarded by the software preservation community +as adequate for timescale of the order of years, but may not be suitable +for the timescale of decades where porting and emulation are used. The +title of this section "Commonly used tools and their longevity" is also +confusing - do you mean the longevity of the tools or the longevity of the +workflows that can be produced using these tools? What happens if you use a +combination of all four categories of tools? + +C8. Readability. I found it difficult to follow the description of how +Maneage works. It wasn't clear to me if code was being run to generate the +results and figures in a LaTeX paper that is part of a project in +Maneage. It appears to be suggested this is the case, but Figure 1 doesn't +show how this works - it just has the LaTeX files, the data files and the +Makefiles. Is it being suggested that LaTeX itself is the programming +language, using its macro functionality? I was a bit confused on how +collaboration is handled as well - this appears to be using the Git +branching model, and the suggestion that Maneage is keeping track of all +components from all projects - but what happens if you are working with +collaborators that are using their own Maneage instance? + +I would also liked to have seen a comparison between this approach and +other "executable" paper approaches e.g. Jupyter notebooks, compared on +completeness, time taken to write a "paper", ease of depositing in a +repository, and ease of use by another researcher. + +Additional Questions: + +1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical? + Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Relevant + +2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?: + The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world + +1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and + the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical.: This + manuscript discusses the challenges of reproducibility of computational + research workflows, suggests criteria for improving the "longevity" of + workflows, describes the proof-of-concept tool, Maneage, that has been + built to implement these criteria, and discusses the challenges to + adoption. + + Of primary importance is the discussion of the challenges to adoption, + as CiSE is about computational science which does not take place in a + theoretical vacuum. Many of the identified challenges relate to the + practice of computational science and the implementation of systems in + the real world. + +2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the + Detailed Comments section.: Partially + +3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in + this field?: The manuscript makes a modest contribution to the + literature through the description of the proof-of-concept, in + particular its approach to integrating asset management, version control + and build and the discussion of challenges to adoption. + + The proposed criteria have mostly been discussed at length in many other + works looking at computational reproducibility and executable papers. + +4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: The + strongest aspect is the discussion of difficulties for widespread + adoption of this sort of approach. Because the proof-of-concept tool + received support through the RDA, it was possible to get feedback from + researchers who were likely to use it. This has highlighted and + reinforced a number of challenges and caveats. + +5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: The weakest + aspect is the assumption that research can be easily compartmentalized + into simple and complete packages. Given that so much of research + involves collaboration and interaction, this is not sufficiently + addressed. In particular, the challenge of interdisciplinary work, where + there may not be common languages to describe concepts and there may be + different common workflow practices will be a barrier to wider adoption + of the primary thesis and criteria. + +1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes + +2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in + the Detailed Comments section.: No + +3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references + (maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: References are sufficient + and appropriate + +4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your + answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Could be improved + +5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate + in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments + section.: Could be improved + +7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the + Detailed Comments section.: Readable - but requires some effort to + understand + +9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this + manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all + that apply.: Topic and content are of immediate and continuing interest + to CiSE readers + +Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments +section.: Good + +-------------------------------------------------- + + + + + +Reviewer: 5 +Recommendation: Author Should Prepare A Major Revision For A Second Review + +Comments: + +Major figures currently working in this exact field do not have their work +acknowledged in this work. In no particular order: Victoria Stodden, +Michael Heroux, Michela Taufer, and Ivo Jimenez. All of these authors have +multiple publications that are highly relevant to this paper. In the case +of Ivo Jimenez, his Popper work [Jimenez I, Sevilla M, Watkins N, Maltzahn +C, Lofstead J, Mohror K, Arpaci-Dusseau A, Arpaci-Dusseau R. The popper +convention: Making reproducible systems evaluation practical. In2017 IEEE +International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops +(IPDPSW) 2017 May 29 (pp. 1561-1570). IEEE.] and the later revision that +uses GitHub Actions, is largely the same as this work. The lack of +attention to virtual machines and containers is highly problematic. While a +reader cannot rely on DockerHub or a generic OS version label for a VM or +container, these are some of the most promising tools for offering true +reproducibility. On the data side, containers have the promise to manage +data sets and workflows completely [Lofstead J, Baker J, Younge A. Data +pallets: containerizing storage for reproducibility and +traceability. InInternational Conference on High Performance Computing 2019 +Jun 16 (pp. 36-45). Springer, Cham.] Taufer has picked up this work and has +graduated a MS student working on this topic with a published thesis. See +also Jimenez's P-RECS workshop at HPDC for additional work highly relevant +to this paper. + +Some other systems that do similar things include: reprozip, occam, whole +tale, snakemake. + +While the work here is a good start, the paper needs to include the context +of the current community development level to be a complete research +paper. A revision that includes evaluation of (using the criteria) and +comparison with the suggested systems and a related work section that +seriously evaluates the work of the recommended authors, among others, +would make this paper worthy for publication. + +Additional Questions: + +1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical? + Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Very + Relevant + +2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?: + The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world + +1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and + the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical.: This + paper describes the Maneage system for reproducibile workflows. It lays + out a bit of the need, has very limited related work, and offers + criteria any system that offers reproducibility should have, and finally + describes how Maneage achieves these goals. + +2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the + Detailed Comments section.: Partially + +3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in + this field?: Yet another example of a reproducible workflows + project. There are numerous examples, mostly domain specific, and this + one is not the most advanced general solution. + +4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: Working + code and published artifacts + +5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: Lack of + context in the field missing very relevant work that eliminates much, if + not all, of the novelty of this work. + +1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes + +2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in + the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references + (maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Important references are + missing; more references are needed + +4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your + answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Could be improved + +5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate + in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments + section.: Could be improved + +7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please + elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Could be improved + +8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the + Detailed Comaments section.: Easy to read + +9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this + manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all + that apply.: Topic and content are likely to be of growing interest to + CiSE readers over the next 12 months + +Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments +section.: Fair diff --git a/peer-review/2-review.txt b/peer-review/2-review.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f8cdd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/peer-review/2-review.txt @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +From: Computing in Science and Engineering <onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com> +To: mohammad akhlaghi org, + infantesainz gmail com, + boud astro uni torun pl, + mkhellat ideal-information.com, + david.valls-gabaud observatoiredeparis psl eu, + rbaena iac es +Cc: cise@computer.org, + cise-rr@computer.org +Received: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:39:59 +0000 +Subject: Decision - Computing in Science and Engineering, CiSESI-2020-06-0048.R1 + +-------------------------------------------------- + +Computing in Science and Engineering, CiSESI-2020-06-0048.R1 +"Towards Long-term and Archivable Reproducibility" +manuscript type: Reproducible Research + +Dear Dr. Mohammad Akhlaghi: + +Congratulations! Your manuscript, "Towards Long-term and Archivable +Reproducibility," CiSESI-2020-06-0048.R1, has been accepted for publication +in an upcoming issue of Computing in Science and Engineering, subject to a +final light copyedit. Do note the editors' comments below. + +Thank you, +Lorena A. Barba +Editor in Chief, Computing in Science and Engineering +labarba gwu edu +********** + +Editor-in-Chief's Comments +********** +- I am processing this as an "accept" to expedite, but please take + notice/care of the following items before submitting your final files. +- Note particularly that you have to edit any usage of a reference (like + [1]) as part of speech in a sentence. Use alternatives like "Smith et + al. [1]." The article template uses superscripts for references! +- I strongly recommend that you deposit the appendices in arXiv, separately + from the main preprint. This way, all the cited works will get their + citation indexed by Google Scholar, which the authors will likely + appreciate. +- You may add the arXiv id for the manuscript and the appendices in your + reproducibility statement at the end of the Abstract. +- I have manually edited the due date for your final files for Friday April + 9 because we are finalizing the next issue. If we received your files + ASAP we can include your article in the next issue. + +Associate Editor Comments: +********** +(There are no comments) + +Reviewers' Comments +********** + +Reviewer: 1 + +Recommendation: Accept With No Changes + +Comments: +A more in depth evaluation of different options from a technical standpoint +rather than just discussion would really strengthen the paper showing that +the idea isn't just good enough to generate this paper that does not +contain experimental code executions and benchmarking demonstrating +different system characteristics. Deeper acknowledgement of the differences +each system brings and over time as they are improved could be greatly +expanded. This is an area of extreme concern. + +Additional Questions: + +1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical? +Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Very Relevant + +2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?: +The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world + +1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and +the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical: This +paper presents necessary requirements for reproducible work. This is aimed +at being able to generate the same output from a workflow of inputs, test +code, and data processing into a text report format. + +The concepts presented cover a wide variety of topics hitting on the vast +majority of cases. The kinds of things not really addressed, such as minor +hardware version differences not evident except in physical stamps on the +part itself, but yielding slightly different behavior, are mentioned at a +high level and left unaddressed. These concerns are part of the longevity +discussion instead and limit the lifetime of an artifact. + +The topics presented cover the topic reasonably well and offer a good guide +for people to think about how best to approach providing a reproducible +scientific system. Most favorably, the paper itself is offered as an +example with an embedded, machine generated version ID and link to the +source materials. This is truly putting your money where your mouth is, so +to speak. + +2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the +Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in +this field?: Clearly defining what the longevity limitations are for +reproducible work is crucial for us as a community to have effective +discussions about what we mean for something to be reproducible. Unless we +can agree what acceptable longevity is, we cannot agree if something is +reproducible or not. The other factors listed for different components are +important things to consider and cover basically everything necessary. + +4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: A simple, +easy to follow discussion of what reproducibility really means and how to +achieve it. + +5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: Few examples +of the process itself and no testing/comparison of any of the variants in +the supplemental materials. + +1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes + +2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in +the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references +(maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please +elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: References are sufficient and +appropriate + +4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your +answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Yes + +5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate +in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments +section.: Satisfactory + +7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please +elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory + +8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the +Detailed Comments section.: Easy to read + +9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this +manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all +that apply.: Topic and content are of immediate and continuing interest to +CiSE readers + +Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments +section.: Good |