BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//conf.nectric.com.au//wombat-2025//talk//YTKMW3
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:AEST
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20000326T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3;UNTIL=20050326T170000Z
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20060402T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4;UNTIL=20060401T170000Z
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20070325T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=4SU;BYMONTH=3;UNTIL=20070324T170000Z
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20080406T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4
TZNAME:AEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20000827T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=4SU;BYMONTH=8;UNTIL=20000826T170000Z
TZNAME:AEDT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20011028T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10;UNTIL=20071027T170000Z
TZNAME:AEDT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20081005T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=10
TZNAME:AEDT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:pretalx-wombat-2025-YTKMW3@conf.nectric.com.au
DTSTART;TZID=AEST:20250930T150000
DTEND;TZID=AEST:20250930T153000
DESCRIPTION:Code for research is more flexible than point-and-click statist
 ical softwares\, but can be more error-prone. These errors may be conceptu
 al (e.g.\, implementing the wrong function for a given task)\, programmati
 c (e.g.\, indexing the wrong column of a data frame)\, or syntactic (e.g.\
 , the incorrect spelling of a statement or function). Although peer review
  is part of the scientific process\, it rarely (though increasingly) invol
 ves review of research code. Part of the difficulty with implementing form
 al peer review of code is the time\, expertise\, and supportive environmen
 t required to successfully execute it. Particularly for more involved anal
 yses\, review of code requires significant time to understand the context\
 , questions\, data\, methods\, and aims. It can also be very difficult to 
 identify people with the appropriate skills in both the given code languag
 e and the methods to effectively review the code. Lastly\, despite peer re
 view itself being a common and integral part of the research process\, peo
 ple are still less prepared to open up their code itself for review and so
  a constructive\, supportive\, peer space is necessary. We present a pilot
  program for peer code review conducted within a research consortium setti
 ng\, which may represent a useful model to overcoming these challenges. Th
 e Australia-Aotearoa Consortium for Epidemic Forecasting & Analytics (ACEF
 A) aims to support timely and effective responses to epidemic diseases in 
 Australia and New Zealand through real-time data analytics\, modelling\, a
 nd forecasting. One of our main activities this winter is reporting short-
 term forecasts for daily case counts of several respiratory pathogens\, fo
 r each Australian state and territory and for New Zealand\, to government 
 health committees and stakeholders. We have multiple forecasts from models
  developed and maintained by one or more research academics in our consort
 ium. In parallel with a review period for the methods in these models\, we
  are also planning to conduct peer code review of models with the followin
 g aims in mind:\n\n1. To confirm that each model implements the documented
  methods\;\n2. To identify potential improvements in each model's implemen
 tation\;\n3. To share expertise about good coding practices\; and\n4. To i
 ncrease exposure to\, and familiarity with\, code review as a means to sup
 port computational research.\n\nWe will conduct pre- and post- evaluation 
 surveys to evaluate how well we address each aim\, and to provide evidence
  for iterative improvements for future rounds of code review. We will pres
 ent this initiative as a component of our community of practice\, and hope
  to initiate a discussion with participants about its merits and dissemina
 tion of the model.
DTSTAMP:20260824T020708Z
LOCATION:8.03
SUMMARY:Piloting peer code review in a research consortium community of pra
 ctice - Saras Windecker
URL:https://conf.nectric.com.au/wombat-2025/talk/YTKMW3/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR