
The world is becoming increasingly complex, both in terms of the rich sources of data we have access to and the statistical and computational methods we can use on data. These factors create an ever‐increasing risk for errors in code and the sensitivity of findings to data preparation and the execution of complex statistical and computing methods. The consequences of coding and data mistakes can be substantial. In this paper, we describe the key steps for implementing a code quality assurance (QA) process that researchers can follow to improve their coding practices throughout a project to assure the quality of the final data, code, analyses, and results. These steps include: (i) adherence to principles for code writing and style that follow best practices; (ii) clear written documentation that describes code, workflow, and key analytic decisions; (iii) careful version control; (iv) good data management; and (v) regular testing and review. Following these steps will greatly improve the ability of a study to assure results are accurate and reproducible. The responsibility for code QA falls not only on individual researchers but institutions, journals, and funding agencies as well.
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Other Statistics (stat.OT), methodology, Statistics - Computation, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, version control, Statistics - Other Statistics, Humans, data management, Mathematical Computing, Computation (stat.CO)
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Other Statistics (stat.OT), methodology, Statistics - Computation, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, version control, Statistics - Other Statistics, Humans, data management, Mathematical Computing, Computation (stat.CO)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 10 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
