  With the advent of Open Science, researchers have started to publish their
research artefacts (i. e., data, software, and other products of the
investigations) in order to allow others to reproduce their investigations.
While this publication is beneficial for science in general, it often lacks a
comprehensive documentation and completeness with respect to the artefacts.
This, in turn, prevents the successful reproduction of the analyses. Typical
examples are missing scripts, incomplete datasets or specification of used
software. Moreover, issues about licences often create legal concerns. This is
true for the use of commercial software but also for the publication of
research artefacts without proper sharing licence. As a result, the sole
publication of research artefacts does not automatically result in reproducible
research.
  To empirically confirm this, we have been systematically analysing research
publications that also published their investigations as Jupyter notebooks. In
this paper, we present preliminary results of this analysis for five
publications. The results show, that the quality of the published research
artefacts must be improved in order to assure reproducibility.
