mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Terminologies for Reproducible Research

arXiv 1802.03311 ↗First posted 9 Feb 2018cs.DLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2018.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.

11 papers.