QFlowCrate: A QGIS Plugin for Workflow Documentation and Provenance Capture to Enhance Geoscientific Reproducibility

Andreas Rademaker; Eftychia Koukouraki; Brian Pondi

doi:10.5334/jors.704

QFlowCrate: A QGIS Plugin for Workflow Documentation and Provenance Capture to Enhance Geoscientific Reproducibility

Journal of Open Research Software

Volume 14 (2026): Issue 1

By: Andreas Rademaker , Eftychia Koukouraki and Brian Pondi

Open Access

|Jun 2026

Abstract

We present QFlowCrate, a QGIS plugin designed to support semi-automatic documentation of geospatial workflows and improve map reproducibility. Addressing the lack of integrated provenance capture in desktop GIS, QFlowCrate retrospectively records data inputs, processing steps, parameters, and cartographic symbology during QGIS use. The plugin is implemented in Python using the PyQGIS API and a modular, graph-based architecture that separates user interaction, internal provenance models, and metadata export. Documented workflows are exported as standard-compliant Research Object Crates (RO-Crates), following the Process Run Crate profile. QFlowCrate is openly available on GitHub and can be reused or extended to support reproducible research practices in geoscientific and cartographic workflows.

References

Barba LA. Terminologies for Reproducible Research. Computing Research Repository. 2018. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1802.03311
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2019. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25303 (Accessed 23 April 2024).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stodden V, et al. Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods. Science. 2016;354(6317): 1240–1241. DOI: 10.1126/science.aah6168
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stodden V, Seiler J, Ma Z. An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115 (11):2584–2589. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708290115
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Obels P, et al. Analysis of Open Data and Computational Reproducibility in Registered Reports in Psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2020;3(2): 229–237. DOI: 10.1177/2515245920918872
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kambouris S, et al. Computationally reproducing results from meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology using shared code and data. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(3):1–22. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300333
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Konkol M, Kray C, Pfeiffer M. Computational reproducibility in geoscientific papers: Insights from a series of studies with geoscientists and a reproduction study. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2019;33(2):408–429. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2018.1508687
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Koukouraki E, Kray C. Map Reproducibility in Geoscientific Publications: An Exploratory Study. In: Beecham R, et al., editors. 12th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2023). Vol. 277. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik; 2023. pp. 6:1–6:16. DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2023.6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kedron P, Holler J, Bardin S. Reproducible Research Practices and Barriers to Reproducible Research in Geography: Insights from a Survey. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2024;114(2):369–386. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2023.2276115
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Samuel S, König-Ries B. Understanding experiments and research practices for reproducibility: an exploratory study. PeerJ. 2021;9:e11140. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11140
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Belhajjame K, et al. PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model. In: Moreau L, Missier P, editors. W3C Recommendation; 2013. https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/ (Accessed 16 December 2025).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giraud T, Lambert N. Reproducible Cartography. In: Peterson MP, editor. Advances in Cartography and GIScience. Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 173–183. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-57336-6_13
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giraud T, Lambert N. Reproducible Workflow for Cartography – Migrants Deaths in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the International Cartographic Association. 2019;2(38). DOI: 10.5194/ica-proc-2-38-2019
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Knoth C, Nüst D. Reproducibility and Practical Adoption of GEOBIA with Open-Source Software in Docker Containers. Remote Sensing. 2017;9(3):290. DOI: 10.3390/rs9030290
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association; 2025. https://www.qgis.org.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Graser A, Sutton T, Bernasocchi M. The QGIS project: Spatial without compromise. Patterns. 2025;6(7):101265. DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2025.101265
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Soiland-Reyes S, et al. Packaging research artefacts with RO-Crate. Data Science. 2022;5(2):97–138. DOI: 10.3233/DS-210053
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leo S, et al. Recording provenance of workflow runs with RO-Crate. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(9):e0309210. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309210
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
RO-Crate Community. RO-Crate Metadata Specification 1.2. In: Sefton P, Soiland-Reyes S, editors; 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13751027
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wilkinson M, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data. 2016;3:160018. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wilkinson SR, et al. Applying the FAIR Principles to computational workflows. Scientific Data. 2025;12(1):328. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-025-04451-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
QGIS project. The model designer — QGIS Documentation. https://docs.qgis.org/3.44/en/docs/user_manual/processing/modeler.html (Accessed 13 April 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Allen DW. Getting to Know ArcGIS ModelBuilder. Esri Press; 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Process Run Crate. https://www.researchobject.org/workflow-run-crate/profiles/process_run_crate/ (Accessed 27 December 2025).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leo S, et al. ro-crate-py. Version 0.14.0; 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15641088
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brooke J. SUS – A Quick and Dirty Usability Scale. In: Jordan PW, et al., editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis; 1996. pp. 189–194.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies. 2009;4(3):114–123.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lewis JR, Sauro J. Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. 2nd ed. Morgan Kaufmann; 2016. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-802308-2.00002-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CRS4. rocrate-validator Documentation. Version 0.7.3. https://rocrate-validator.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ (Accessed 21 September 2025).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.704 | Journal eISSN: 2049-9647

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 44 - 44

Submitted on: Feb 18, 2026

Accepted on: May 21, 2026

Published on: Jun 5, 2026

Published by: Ubiquity Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

geospatial workflows,

FAIR,

© 2026 Andreas Rademaker, Eftychia Koukouraki, Brian Pondi, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 14 (2026): Issue 1