Search for: All records

The number of reproduction and replication studies undertaken across the sciences continues to rise, but such studies have not yet become commonplace in geography. Existing attempts to reproduce geographic research suggest that many studies cannot be fully reproduced, or are simply missing components needed to attempt a reproduction. Despite this suggestive evidence, a systematic assessment of geographers’ perceptions of reproducibility and use of reproducible research practices remains absent from the literature, as does an identification of the factors that keep geographers from conducting reproduction studies. We address each of these needs by surveying active geographic researchers selected using probability sampling techniques from a rigorously constructed sampling frame. We identify a clear division in perceptions of reproducibility among geographic subfields. We also find varying levels of familiarity with reproducible research practices and a perceived lack of incentives to attempt and publish reproduction studies. Despite many barriers to reproducibility and divisions between subfields, we also find common foundations for examining and expanding reproducibility in the field. These include interest in publishing transparent and reproducible methods, and in reproducing other researchers’ studies for a variety of motivations including learning, assessing the internal validity of a study, or extending prior work. 

Despite recent calls to make geographical analyses more reproducible, formal attempts to reproduce or replicate published work remain largely absent from the geographic literature. The reproductions of geographic research that do exist typically focus on computational reproducibility—whether results can be recreated using data and code provided by the authors—rather than on evaluating the conclusion and internal validity and evidential value of the original analysis. However, knowing if a study is computationally reproducible is insufficient if the goal of a reproduction is to identify and correct errors in our knowledge. We argue that reproductions of geographic work should focus on assessing whether the findings and claims made in existing empirical studies are well supported by the evidence presented. We aim to facilitate this transition by introducing a model framework for conducting reproduction studies, demonstrating its use, and reporting the findings of three exemplar studies. We present three model reproductions of geographical analyses of COVID‐19 based on a common, open access template. Each reproduction attempt is published as an open access repository, complete with pre‐analysis plan, data, code, and final report. We find each study to be partially reproducible, but moving past computational reproducibility, our assessments reveal conceptual and methodological concerns that raise questions about the predictive value and the magnitude of the associations presented in each study. Collectively, these reproductions and our template materials offer a practical framework others can use to reproduce and replicate empirical spatial analyses and ultimately facilitate the identification and correction of errors in the geographic literature. 

To hold the same privileged epistemological position as science, spatial data science must satisfy the self-corrective thesis. Doing so depends on the field’s capacity to reproduce and replicate published work, the willingness of researchers to do so, and our ability to assess the cumulative insights of such studies. We present some steps spatial data science might take to develop these capabilities and put forward a provisional vision of a veridical spatial data science. 

Abstract Scale is a central concept in the geographical sciences and is an intrinsic property of many spatial systems. It also serves as an essential thread in the fabric of many other physical and social sciences, which has contributed to the use of different terminology for similar manifestations of what we refer to as ‘scale’, leading to a surprising amount of diversity around this fundamental concept and its various ‘multiscale’ extensions. To address this, we review common abstractions about spatial scale and how they are employed in quantitative research. We also explore areas where the conceptualizations of multiple spatial scales can be differentiated. This is achieved by first bridging terminology and concepts, and then conducting a scoping review of the topic. A typology for spatial scale is discussed that can be used to categorize its multifarious meanings and measures. This typology is then used to distinguish what we term ‘process scale,’ from other types of spatial scale and to highlight current trends in uncovering aspects of process scale. We end with suggestions on how to further build knowledge regarding spatial processes through the lens of spatial scale. 

COVID-19 has seriously threatened people’s health and well-being across the globe since it was first reported in Wuhan, China in late 2019. This study investigates the mechanism of COVID-19 transmission in different periods within and between cities in China to better understand the nature of the outbreak. We use Moran’s I, a measure of spatial autocorrelation, to examine the spatial dependency of COVID-19 and a dynamic spatial autoregressive model to explore the transmission mechanism. We find that the spatial dependency of COVID-19 decreased over time and that the transmission of the disease could be divided into three distinct stages: an eruption stage, a stabilization stage, and a declination stage. The infection rate between cities was close to one-third of the infection rate within cities at the eruption stage, while it reduced to zero at the declination stage. We also find that the infection rates within cities at the eruption stage and declination stage were similar. China’s policies for controlling the spread of the epidemic, specifically with respect to limiting inter-city mobility and implementing intra-city travel restrictions (social isolation), were most effective in reducing the viral transmission of COVID-19. The findings from this study indicate that the elimination of inter-city mobility had the largest impact on controlling disease transmission.