Content deleted Content added
→Terminology: Removed biased phrasing that suggested an objective correct definition in the very same sentence that acknowledged a legitimate debate over the usage and definition of reproducibility. Edited to be consistent with the framing presented in the header of the article. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Edit to comp sci definition sentence to clarify this is a definition of comp sci. Previous text was a bit sentence fragment-y. Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 4:
'''Reproducibility''', closely related to '''replicability''' and '''repeatability''', is a major principle underpinning the [[scientific method]]. For the findings of a study to be reproducible means that results obtained by an [[experiment]] or an [[observational study]] or in a [[statistical analysis]] of a [[data set]] should be achieved again with a high degree of reliability when the study is replicated. There are different kinds of replication<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Tsang|first1=Eric W. K.|last2=Kwan|first2=Kai-man|date=1999|title=Replication and Theory Development in Organizational Science: A Critical Realist Perspective|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553252|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=24|issue=4|pages=759–780|doi=10.5465/amr.1999.2553252|issn=0363-7425}}</ref> but typically replication studies involve different researchers using the same methodology. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.
With a narrower scope, ''reproducibility'' has been
In recent decades, there has been a rising concern that many published scientific results fail the test of reproducibility, evoking a reproducibility or [[replication crisis]].
| |||