pith. sign in

arxiv: 1802.03311 · v1 · pith:UYD3BOCWnew · submitted 2018-02-09 · 💻 cs.DL

Terminologies for Reproducible Research

classification 💻 cs.DL
keywords sameterminologiesacrosscallsdatadifferentdisciplinesgroup
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

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.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Coding-agents can replicate scientific machine learning papers

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Paper-replication is a workflow that enables coding agents to replicate computational claims from scientific ML papers by recording targets, reconstructing methods, running experiments, and validating evidence against...

  2. Automating Computational Reproducibility in Social Science: Comparing Prompt-Based and Agent-Based Approaches

    cs.SE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Agent-based AI workflows repair injected reproducibility failures in R social-science code at 69-96% success, substantially outperforming prompt-based LLM approaches at 31-79%.