,
9 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Now out! New report examines Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, with recommendations for researchers, agencies, policy makers, journals, etc.
@theNASEM ow.ly/BK5350u0Iz2
#ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM ow.ly/BK5350u0Iz2
#ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM Terms like “reproducibility” and “replicability” are sometimes used as an umbrella word to encompass all related concerns. But often, researchers use each term to refer to a distinct concept. #ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM The committee defined #reproducibility as obtaining consistent computational results using the same input data, computational steps, methods, code, and conditions of analysis as an original study.
@theNASEM #Replicability is defined as obtaining consistent results across studies aimed at answering the same scientific question, each of which has obtained its own data. #ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM The committee’s definition of reproducibility focuses on computation because the abundance of data and widespread use of computation have transformed most science and engineering disciplines. #ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM The report recommends seeking convergent evidence when contemplating a serious decision or policy based on results of a single study #ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM When results are produced by complex computational processes using large volumes of data, the methods section of a scientific paper is insufficient to convey the information needed to reproduce the results. theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
@theNASEM Sources of non-reproducibility: inadequate record keeping; non-transparent reporting; obsolescence of the digital artifacts; flawed attempts to reproduce results; barriers in academic culture (see p.55 of the report) #ReproducibilityInScience
@theNASEM One of the key recommendations to @NSF and other funding agencies is to introduce reproducibility and replicability as part of the merit-review criteria #ReproducibilityInScience
