Abstract
A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is regularly used to support model applications in catchment hydrological modelling software. A GUI is generally user-friendly for novice users but opens sources of irreproducible research. We illustrate that none of the 10 Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) models over the Upper Blue Nile can easily be reproduced. Scripted workflows provide the ability to reproduce model set-ups, but they may be less user-friendly especially to novice users. We present a software (SWAT + AW) that promotes reproducible SWAT + model studies while remaining user-friendly for both novice and expert users. SWAT + AW uses a configuration file to create models that are compatible with GUI. We applied the workflow to the Blue Nile catchment and show that it yields the same results the SWAT + GUI. We conclude that such user-friendly scripted workflows enhance reproducibility, transparency and reusability of hydrological models. The software is publicly available at https://github.com/VUB-HYDR/SWATPlus-AW.
Highlights
The scientific method relies on the ability of scientists to reproduce each other’s published results so they can build upon prior knowledge (Begley and Ioannidis, 2015; Marcus, 2015)
This study aims at promoting reproducibility and transparency of SWAT + for both novice and expert users by presenting a software, SWAT + Automatic Workflow (SWAT + AW), for setting up the Soil and Water Assessment Tool+ (SWAT+)
The config file used for the SWAT + AW setup had the same settings as the one derived from the Graphical User Interface (GUI) model setup, demonstrating that SWAT + users can derive config files for their model setups and share them to promote transparency and reproducibility of their work
Summary
The scientific method relies on the ability of scientists to reproduce each other’s published results so they can build upon prior knowledge (Begley and Ioannidis, 2015; Marcus, 2015). It has been discovered that a large proportion of scientific research is not repro ducible (Vasilevsky et al, 2013; McNutt, 2014). In their survey involving researchers from biology, chemistry, earth and environment, medicine, physics and engineering, and other fields, Baker and Penny (2016) reported that more than 70% of the researchers that tried to reproduce another scientist’s experiment failed in the experiment. Scientific fraud is where researchers tamper with the model to get the results that they are looking for
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
