Document Open Access Logo

Map Reproducibility in Geoscientific Publications: An Exploratory Study

Authors Eftychia Koukouraki , Christian Kray



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.GIScience.2023.6.pdf
  • Filesize: 5.61 MB
  • 16 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Eftychia Koukouraki
  • Insitute for Geoinformatics, University of Münster, Germany
Christian Kray
  • Insitute for Geoinformatics, University of Münster, Germany

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the authors who took the time to respond to our queries and helped us to overcome issues we faced in reproducing maps and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Eftychia Koukouraki and Christian Kray. Map Reproducibility in Geoscientific Publications: An Exploratory Study. In 12th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 277, pp. 6:1-6:16, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2023.6

Abstract

Reproducibility is a core element of the scientific method. In the Geosciences, the insights derived from geodata are frequently communicated through maps, and the computational methods to create these maps vary in their ease of reproduction. In this paper, we present the results from a study where we tried to reproduce the maps included in geoscientific publications. Following a systematic approach, we collected 27 candidate papers and in four cases, we were able to successfully reproduce the maps they contained. We report on the approach we applied, the issues we encountered and the insights we gained while attempting to reproduce the maps. In addition, we provide an initial set of criteria to assess the success of a map reproduction attempt. We also propose some guidelines for improving map reproducibility in geoscientific publications. Our work sheds a light on the current state of map reproducibility in geoscientific papers and can benefit researchers interested in publishing maps in a more reproducible way.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Human-centered computing → Geographic visualization
  • Applied computing → Cartography
Keywords
  • Reproducible Research
  • Reproduction Assessment
  • Map Making
  • Cartography

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Lorena A. Barba. Terminologies for Reproducible Research, February 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.03311.
  2. Philip E. Bourne, Timothy W. Clark, Robert Dale, Anita de Waard, Ivan Herman, Eduard H. Hovy, and David Shotton. Improving The Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 11331). Dagstuhl Manifestos, 1(1):41-60, 2012. Place: Dagstuhl, Germany Publisher: Schloss Dagstuhl –- Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/DagMan.1.1.41.
  3. Jon F. Claerbout and Martin Karrenbach. Electronic documents give reproducible research a new meaning. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1992, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pages 601-604. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, January 1992. URL: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1822162.
  4. David L. Donoho, Arian Maleki, Inam Ur Rahman, Morteza Shahram, and Victoria Stodden. Reproducible Research in Computational Harmonic Analysis. Computing in Science & Engineering, 11(1):8-18, January 2009. Conference Name: Computing in Science & Engineering. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2009.15.
  5. Jean-Daniel Fekete and Juliana Freire. Exploring Reproducibility in Visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 40(5):108-119, September 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2020.3006412.
  6. Timothée Giraud and Nicolas Lambert. Reproducible Cartography. In Michael P. Peterson, editor, Advances in Cartography and GIScience, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, pages 173-183, Cham, 2017. Springer International Publishing. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57336-6_13.
  7. Timothée Giraud and Nicolas Lambert. Reproducible Workflow for Cartography – Migrants Deaths in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the ICA, 2:1-7, July 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-proc-2-38-2019.
  8. Michael F. Goodchild, A. Stewart Fotheringham, Peter Kedron, and Wenwen Li. Introduction: Forum on Reproducibility and Replicability in Geography. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111(5):1271-1274, July 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1806030.
  9. Data Citation Synthesis Group. Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles. Technical report, Force11, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.25490/A97F-EGYK.
  10. Michael A. Heroux, Lorena Barba, Manish Parashar, Victoria Stodden, and Michela Taufer. Toward a Compatible Reproducibility Taxonomy for Computational and Computing Sciences. Technical Report SAND2018-11186, Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), October 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.2172/1481626.
  11. R. Hébert, U. Herzschuh, and T. Laepple. Millennial-scale climate variability over land overprinted by ocean temperature fluctuations. Nature Geoscience, 15(11):899-905, November 2022. Number: 11 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01056-4.
  12. Raphaël Hébert. Hhl2022, September 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7062762.
  13. Patrick J. Kennelly, Tom Patterson, Bernhard Jenny, Daniel P. Huffman, Brooke E. Marston, Sarah Bell, and Alexander M. Tait. Elevation models for reproducible evaluation of terrain representation. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 48(1):63-77, January 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2020.1830856.
  14. Christian Knoth and Daniel Nüst. Reproducibility and Practical Adoption of GEOBIA with Open-Source Software in Docker Containers. Remote Sensing, 9(3):290, March 2017. Number: 3 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9030290.
  15. Markus Konkol and Christian Kray. In-depth examination of spatiotemporal figures in open reproducible research. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 46(5):412-427, September 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2018.1512421.
  16. Markus Konkol, Christian Kray, and Max Pfeiffer. Computational reproducibility in geoscientific papers: Insights from a series of studies with geoscientists and a reproduction study. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(2):408-429, February 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1508687.
  17. Menno-Jan Kraak. Strategic Plan for 2019–2027. Technical report, International Cartographic Association, Enschede, April 2019. URL: https://icaci.org/strategic-plan/.
  18. Menno-Jan Kraak and Sara Irina Fabrikant. Of maps, cartography and the geography of the International Cartographic Association. International Journal of Cartography, 3(sup1):9-31, October 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/23729333.2017.1288535.
  19. Florian Ledermann and Georg Gartner. Towards Conducting Reproducible Distributed Experiments in the Geosciences. AGILE: GIScience Series, 2:1-7, June 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.5194/agile-giss-2-33-2021.
  20. Alan M MacEachren. Cartography as an Academic Field: A Lost Opportunity or a New Beginning? Cartographic Journal, 50(2):166-170, May 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1179/0008704113Z.00000000083.
  21. Gengchen Mai, Weiming Huang, Ling Cai, Rui Zhu, and Ni Lao. Narrative Cartography with Knowledge Graphs. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 6(1):4, February 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-021-00097-4.
  22. B. A. Nosek et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242):1422-1425, June 2015. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374.
  23. Daniel Nüst, Carlos Granell, Barbara Hofer, Markus Konkol, Frank O. Ostermann, Rusne Sileryte, and Valentina Cerutti. Reproducible research and GIScience: an evaluation using AGILE conference papers. PeerJ, 6:e5072, July 2018. Publisher: PeerJ Inc. URL: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5072.
  24. Daniel Nüst, Markus Konkol, Edzer Pebesma, Christian Kray, Marc Schutzeichel, Holger Przibytzin, and Jörg Lorenz. Opening the Publication Process with Executable Research Compendia. D-Lib Magazine, 23, January 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1045/january2017-nuest.
  25. Daniel Nüst and Edzer Pebesma. Practical Reproducibility in Geography and Geosciences. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111(5):1300-1310, July 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1806028.
  26. Frank O. Ostermann. Peer assessment to improve reproducibility of computational project work. In Hans-Ulrich Heiß, Hannu-Matti Järvinen, Annette Meyer, and Alexandra Schulz, editors, SEFI 49th Annual Conference, SEFI Proceedings, pages 1080-1090, Berlin, Germany, 2021. Technische Universität Berlin. URL: https://www.sefi.be/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SEFI49th-Proceedings-final.pdf.
  27. Frank O. Ostermann, Daniel Nüst, Carlos Granell, Barbara Hofer, and Markus Konkol. Reproducible Research and GIScience: An Evaluation Using GIScience Conference Papers. In Krzysztof Janowicz and Judith A. Verstegen, editors, 11th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2021) - Part II, volume 208 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 2:1-2:16, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2021. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2021.II.2.
  28. Roger D. Peng. Reproducible Research in Computational Science. Science, 334(6060):1226-1227, December 2011. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213847.
  29. Nohemí Ramirez Aranda, Jeroen De Waegemaeker, Viktor Venhorst, Wim Leendertse, Eva Kerselaers, and Nico Van de Weghe. Point, polygon, or marker? In search of the best geographic entity for mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services using the online PPGIS tool, "My Green Place.", December 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4347404.
  30. Nohemí Ramírez Aranda, Jeroen De Waegemaeker, Viktor Venhorst, Wim Leendertse, Eva Kerselaers, and Nico Van de Weghe. Point, polygon, or marker? In search of the best geographic entity for mapping cultural ecosystem services using the online public participation geographic information systems tool, "My Green Place". Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 48(6):491-511, November 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2021.1949392.
  31. Center for Open Science. New Measure Rates Quality of Research Journals’ Policies to Promote Transparency and Reproducibility. URL: https://www.cos.io/about/news/new-measure-rates-quality-research-journals-policies-promote-transparency-and-reproducibility.
  32. Claudio T. Silva, Juliana Freire, and Steven P. Callahan. Provenance for Visualizations: Reproducibility and Beyond. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(5):82-89, September 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.106.
  33. Arfon M. Smith, Daniel S. Katz, and Kyle E. Niemeyer. Software citation principles. PeerJ Computer Science, 2:e86, September 2016. Publisher: PeerJ Inc. URL: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86.
  34. Daniel Sui and Peter Kedron. Reproducibility and Replicability in the Context of the Contested Identities of Geography. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111(5):1275-1283, July 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1806024.
  35. D. R. FRASER Taylor. CHAPTER 1 - Geographic Information Systems: The Microcomputer and Modern Cartography. In Fraser Taylor, editor, Modern Cartography Series, volume 1 of Geographic Information Systems, pages 1-20. Academic Press, January 1991. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-040277-2.50009-X.
  36. Mark D. Wilkinson et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1):160018, March 2016. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail