2018/02/09 by Lorena A. Barba, Barba, Lorena A. · 2 citations
Computer Science · #Digital Libraries (cs.DL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #cs.DL
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.03311
arxiv created 2018/02/09 · arxiv updated 2018/02/12
Reproducible research---by its many names---has come to be regarded as a key concern across disciplines and stakeholder groups. Funding agencies and journals, professional societies and even mass media are paying attention, often focusing on the so-called "crisis" of reproducibility. One big problem keeps coming up among those seeking to tackle the issue: different groups are using terminologies in utter contradiction with each other. Looking at a broad sample of publications in different fields, we can classify their terminology via decision tree: they either, A---make no distinction between the words reproduce and replicate, or B---use them distinctly. If B, then they are commonly divided in two camps. In a spectrum of concerns that starts at a minimum standard of "same data+same methods=same results," to "new data and/or new methods in an independent study=same findings," group 1 calls the minimum standard reproduce, while group 2 calls it replicate. This direct swap of the two terms aggravates an already weighty issue. By attempting to inventory the terminologies across disciplines, I hope that some patterns will emerge to help us resolve the contradictions.