Abstract
The Systems Biology community has taken numerous actions to develop data and modeling standards towards FAIR data and model handling. Nevertheless, the debate about incentives and rewards for individual researchers to make their results reproducible is ongoing. Here, we pose the specific question of whether reproducible models have a higher impact in terms of citations. Therefore, we statistically analyze 328 published models recently classified by Tiwari et al. based on their reproducibility. For hypothesis testing, we use a flexible Bayesian approach that provides complete distributional information for all quantities of interest and can handle outliers. The results show that in the period from 2013, i.e., 10 years after the introduction of SBML, to 2020, the group of reproducible models is significantly more cited than the non-reproducible group. We show that differences in journal impact factors do not explain this effect and that this effect increases with additional standardization of data and error model integration via PEtab. Overall, our statistical analysis demonstrates the long-term merits of reproducible modeling for the individual researcher in terms of citations. Moreover, it provides evidence for the increased use of reproducible models in the scientific community.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).
