Post #1055813
2026-03-25 08:46 UTC
In empirical software engineering research, we use "replication package" as term of art for artifacts shared to enable others to rerun a scientific experiment.
Sadly, it is a semantically wrong expression. It should be called "reproducibility package" instead.
The former (replication) is for a "Different team, [with a] different experimental setup" to rerun experiment, which is not the goal.
The latter (reproducibility) is for a "Different team, [with the] same experimental setup", which is.
Replies (1)
-
@zacchiro@mastodon.xyz 2026-03-25 08:47
Ironically, the (wrong) term of art is very popular in ACM conferences, which precisely define the terms in its artifact review and badging guidelines (version 1.1, current): https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-and-badging-current (Yes, I know this comes from the historical mistake ACM did with version 1.0, where the definitions were wrong. But it has been fixed 6 years ago, in 2020.)