Scientific publications
Mélodie Ambroset
Other affiliations: Inserm · Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · Biopolymères Interactions Assemblages · Nantes Université
Cesar Augusto Valades‐Cruz
Other affiliations: Institute of Hydrobiology
Rocco D’Antuono* (Corresponding author)
Other affiliations: University of Reading
Caterina Fuster‐Barceló* (Corresponding author)
Journal of Microscopy
Reproducibility challenges in bioimage analysis are common. The proliferation of tools and workflows creates a complex ecosystem that is difficult to reproduce without deliberate, explicit reporting and support. We assess the reproducibility of Gehrels et al.(2023) as a representative bioimage analysis workflow. We do not evaluate the biological claims; instead, we examine the reproducibility of the bioimage analysis methods used and the implications for current peer-review practices in the field. Although some data were deposited in the BioImage Archive and code was available on GitHub, the materials were insufficient to completely reproduce the analysis. Moreover, the repository lacked the configuration to enable straightforward replication of the workflow or results. This case study highlighted how incomplete reporting can significantly hinder the reproduction of bioimage analysis workflows. Because scientific progress relies on verifiable replications, insufficiently reproducible results can erode confidence in the scientific record.
