A .Rmd Template for Master's Dissertations at CLSBE
Meet the best standards for scientific writing
May 10, 2022
[CURRENTLY UNDER FULL REVISION. NEW VERSION SOON.]
Motivation
I have been strongly promoting the use of .Rmd files for research—e.g., here. This type of file combines text editing—in Markdown language—and data analysis—in R language—in one single document, allowing for reproducible research as well as dynamic documents.1
Overall, the workflow associated with these files sets a high epistemological standard of good practices in science.2
It occurred to me that the layout of the Master’s dissertation and its conformity with the School’s requirements may prevent students from adopting that standard. So I decided to help lift that obstacle by offering a .Rmd template for dissertations at CLSBE.
As of now, I came up with a beta v.0.1—first draft. I will first gauge if it proves useful and worth maintaining. So I’m putting it out as a work in progress along with a call for comments, suggestions, etc.
Actually, there are two fronts in this project—for both the feedback is much welcome: a template and a manual.
Download the Template
The template is a R project, i.e., a bundle of files containing the main .Rmd file. You can download the latest version here.
Check out the Manual
An online manual with all sorts of instructions for using the template is also available. Read it here.
The manual requires the same credentials as for this blog post.
Try Knit
The file template.Rmd should be ready to Knit out of the box, albeit slowly at the first attempt.
Please let me know of your experience.
I’m focusing here on .Rmd because R is our software of choice. But I should mention that there is a restricted list of alternative files that share these features.↩︎
The Master’s dissertation is an exercise in scientific investigation. As such, it should abide by the rules of scientific investigation. Logically, I see no reason for students to not use a .Rmd file for their thesis. Incidentally, recalling the scientific nature of the exercise is sufficient to discard the fallacious argument of the “industry-compatibility”—use what is used in the industry. The firm may rationally reject the .Rmd workflow based on a cost-benefit analysis. But this should have no bearing on the choices made at University where other criteria are used.↩︎