Research Code Sharing in Support of Gold Standard Science

Published in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology on 2026-01-14.

David C. Klonoff; Juan Espinoza; Julia K. Mader; Lutz Heinemann; Claudio Cobelli; David Kerr; Boris Kovatchev; Bijan Najafi; Priya Prahalad; Yaguang Zheng; and 71 others; Shahid N. Shah

Read the paper at the publisher (DOI 10.1177/19322968251391819)

Abstract

Sharing research code in an open access version-controlled repository offers significant benefits for both science as a whole and for individual researchers. This article focuses on this practice, which is fully aligned with the NIH's Gold Standard Science (GSS) program as well as FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and TRUST (transparency, responsibility, user focus, sustainability, technology) principles.

Pairing a research article's cited data snapshot with a versioned, environment-specific code release, deposited in a companion code repository, ensures that, upon submission to a medical journal, readers and reviewers can directly verify results. An executable and updatable companion code repository complements, rather than replaces, established research data repositories. When code underlying medical research results is made openly available, other scientists can inspect, run, and validate analyses, which enhances reproducibility, a core aim of Gold Standard Science.

Put this to work

Test whether the published finding applies in another setting.

For: Practitioners, researchers, founders, and operating leaders.
What you keep: A finding application record you can review, revise, and send.
What counts as sound: Answers a named decision
Separates evidence from assumptions
Includes the strongest contrary case
Names missing evidence
Ends with a test, owner, and date

Read the published paper and its limits before acting on the result.

Nothing entered here is stored or sent. Review the prompt before sharing confidential, personal, patient, or privileged information.

The caseName the organization, setting, product, or piece of work without including confidential information.The decisionWhat must someone decide, and who owns that decision?Evidence in handList records, observations, measurements, rights, or prior work that can be checked.What is still unknownName missing evidence, disputed assumptions, and practical constraints.

Review the prompt

Finding application record 1.0

PURPOSE
Test whether the published finding applies in another setting.

CONTEXT
The case: Not provided
The decision: Not provided
Evidence in hand: Not provided
What is still unknown: Not provided

METHOD
1. State the finding being used.
2. Compare the original setting with yours.
3. List evidence that transfers and evidence that does not.
4. Name alternative explanations.
5. Define a replication or application test.

TASK
Use the method below to produce a Finding application record.

RULES
Separate facts, inferences, assumptions, estimates, hypotheses, and unknowns. Do not invent evidence, performance, rights, customers, economics, or regulatory standing. Quote or link the source for material facts. State uncertainty. Name what would disprove the conclusion. End with the smallest credible test, an owner, a decision date, and a stop condition.

A SOUND ANSWER
- Answers a named decision
- Separates evidence from assumptions
- Includes the strongest contrary case
- Names missing evidence
- Ends with a test, owner, and date

CAUTION
Read the published paper and its limits before acting on the result.

You can leave any field blank. The prompt will mark it as not provided.

If the record survives your review, send the question, evidence, unknowns, and requested next step.

Discuss a replication or application Intellectual Frontiers on LinkedIn