Preprint Short Note Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

A Guide and Toolbox to Replicability and Open Science in Entomology

Version 1 : Received: 16 January 2020 / Approved: 18 January 2020 / Online: 18 January 2020 (09:05:49 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Wittman, J. T., and B. H. Aukema. 2020. A guide and toolbox to replicability and open science in entomology. J. Insect Sci. 20: 1–9. Wittman, J. T., and B. H. Aukema. 2020. A guide and toolbox to replicability and open science in entomology. J. Insect Sci. 20: 1–9.

Journal reference: Journal of Insect Science 2020, 20, 6
DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/ieaa036


The ability to replicate scientific experiments is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Sharing ideas, workflows, data, and protocols facilitates testing the generalizability of results, increases the speed that science progresses, and enhances quality control of published work. Fields of science such as medicine, the social sciences, and the physical sciences have embraced practices designed to increase replicability. Granting agencies, for example, may require data management plans and journals may require data and code availability statements along with the deposition of data and code in publicly available repositories. While many tools commonly used in replicable workflows such as distributed version control systems (e.g. “git”) or scripted programming languages for data cleaning and analysis may have a steep learning curve, their adoption can increase individual efficiency and facilitate collaborations both within entomology and across disciplines. The open science movement is developing within the discipline of entomology, but practitioners of these concepts or those desiring to work more collaboratively across disciplines may be unsure where or how to embrace these initiatives. This article is meant to introduce some of the tools entomologists can incorporate into their workflows to increase the replicability and openness of their work. We describe these tools and others, recommend additional resources for learning more about these tools, and discuss the benefits to both individuals and the scientific community and potential drawbacks associated with implementing a replicable workflow.

Subject Areas

reproducibility; open access; data curation; data mangement; pre-print servers

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.