7 ms·
I'm not sure replicatable or reproducible are better or worse than each other. They are just different things. Replicatable seems to hint at an easy way to run
by kjjw 11y ago
I'm not sure replicatable or reproducible are better or worse than each other. They are just different things. Replicatable seems to hint at an easy way to run quite literally the exact same experiment or process as someone else has done in the past, while reproducible suggests there is enough information made available for someone else to re-create from the ground up a previous experiment or process.
It seems to me both have merits and one cannot assume that performing a 'replication' is a superior form of 'reproduction', nor the other way around. I suspect the merits and relative desirability of one or the other vary depending on discipline.
- phreeza 11y agoThe way I understood it is that the authors treat replicable or reproducible as the same thing, the tag line just means that having actually replicated it is better than the possibility of replication existing. What is the difference between replication and reproduction?
- jamessb 11y agoWhat is the difference between replication and reproduction? When people draw a distinction, it is usually that replication refers to doing exactly the same thing, and getting the same results, whereas reproduction refers to doing a different thing, but reaching the same conclusion. There is interesting discussion of different forms of verification n "Replication, Reproduction and Re-analysis: Three ways for verifying experimental findings": http://sequoia.cs.byu.edu/lab/files/reser2010/proceedings/Gomez%20-%20Replication%20Reproduction.pdf http://sequoia.cs.byu.edu/lab/files/reser2010/proceedings/Go...
- Nicolas_Rougier 11y agoReScience makes a distinction between reproducible and replicatable. For ReScience, we explicitly ask for a new implementation from scratch. This means the model is reproducible because it has been replicated (if replicated).