TY - JOUR
AU - 
AB - OPINION published: 18 January 2018 doi: 10.3389/fninf.2017.00076 Reproducibility vs. Replicability: A Brief History of a Confused Terminology 1,2 Hans E. Plesser * 1 2 Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, Institute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany Keywords: computational science, repeatability, replicability, reproducibility, artifacts A cornerstone of science is the possibility to critically assess the correctness of scientific claims made and conclusions drawn by other scientists. This requires a systematic approach to and precise description of experimental procedure and subsequent data analysis, as well as careful attention to potential sources of error, both systematic and statistic. Ideally, an experiment or analysis should be described in sufficient detail that other scientists with sufficient skills and means can follow the steps described in published work and obtain the same results within the margins of experimental error. Furthermore, where fundamental insights into nature are obtained, such as a measurement of the speed of light or the propagation of action potentials along axons, independent confirmation of the measurement or phenomenon is expected using different experimental means. In some cases, doubts about the interpretation of certain results have given rise to new branches of 
TI - Reproducibility vs. Replicability: A Brief History of a Confused Terminology
JF - Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
DO - 10.3389/fninf.2017.00076
DA - 2018-01-18
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/unpaywall/reproducibility-vs-replicability-a-brief-history-of-a-confused-CDObR0vHnF
DP - DeepDyve
ER -