Reproducibility: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:55, 18 May 2025

Revision as of 06:44, 18 May 2025

Line 72:

Reproducibility in the original, wide sense is only acknowledged if a replication performed by an ''independent researcher team'' is successful.

The terms reproducibility and replicability sometimes appear even in the scientific literature with reversed meaning,<ref>{{cite arXiv|title=Terminologies for Reproducible Research|last1=Barba|first1=Lorena A.|year=2018|class=cs.DL |eprint=1802.03311}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Replicability vs. reproducibility — or is it the other way round?|last1=Liberman|first1=Mark|url=https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21956|access-date=2020-10-15}}</ref> as different research fields settled on their own definitions for the same terms.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Brooke on the Merton Thesis: A Direct Replication of John Hedley Brooke’sBrooke's Chapter on Scientific and Religious Reform.|last1=Van Eyghen|first1=Hans|last2=Van den Brink| first2=Gijsbert |last3=Peels | first3=Rik|year=2024|journal=Zygon |volume=59| issue=2| url=https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/11497/#!}}</ref>

==Measures of reproducibility and repeatability==

Line 107:

Reproducible research is key to new discoveries in [[pharmacology]]. A Phase I discovery will be followed by Phase II reproductions as a drug develops towards commercial production. In recent decades Phase II success has fallen from 28% to 18%. A 2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Prinz |first1=F. |last2=Schlange |first2=T. |last3=Asadullah |first3=K. |doi=10.1038/nrd3439-c1 |title=Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? |journal=Nature Reviews Drug Discovery |volume=10 |issue=9 |page=712 |year=2011 |pmid=21892149 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Some efforts have been made to imcrease replicability beyond the social and biomedical sciences. Studies in the humanities tend to rely more on expertise and hermeneutics which may make replicability more difficult. Nonetheless, some efforts have been made to call for more transparency and documentation in the humanities. <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Van Eyghen |first1=Hans |last2= Van den Brink |first2=Gijsbert |last3= Peels |first3= Rik |title=Brooke on the Merton Thesis: A Direct Replication of John Hedley Brooke’sBrooke's Chapter on Scientific and Religious Reform |journal=Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science |volume=59 |issue=2 |year=2024|url=https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/11497/| doi=10.16995/zygon.11497|doi-access=free }}</ref>

==Noteworthy irreproducible results==