Post #652738
2025-12-07 09:25 UTC
Reading a paper this morning https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pds.4295 that follows Nosek & Errington (2017) https://elifesciences.org/articles/23383.pdf in muddling the distinction between #replicability as a broader scientific aim vs #reproducibility as captured in the narrow (purely 'computational') idea of #reproducibleresearch discussed e.g. in a #Guix context here https://guix.gnu.org/cookbook/en/html_node/Reproducible-Research.html.
This mistake is not uncommon, and leads (in this present paper, at least) to insufficient stress on computational reproducibility as a sine qua non of any higher-order quality attribute.
Replies (1)
-
@khinsen@scholar.social 2025-12-08 13:06
@dcnorris@scicomm.xyz I often get related questions after my talks. My standard answer is that unless you have decent computational reproducibility, you don't really know what exactly people have done, so when it comes to exploring replicability, you have to navigate in fog.