What is the difference between repeatability, replicability and reproducibility?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I have seen many instances where authors used the term "reproducibility" and "replicability" interchangeably in the social and behavioural sciences. Sometimes, they distinguish between the "repeatability" of experiments (same measurand/same measurement conditions) and "replicability" (same measurand/different conditions). If the three concepts are differentiated than, in most cases, there seems to be an inherent hierarchy between the three concepts:
repeatability < reproducibility < replicability
Where a successful replication means that the same finding has been achieved with different data (or sometimes methods) and reproducibility means that it is possible to get the same results given the data and analytical means from the original study.



However, it occurs to me that at least in computer science this seems to be different.[1]

I am not aware of the situation in other fields. Therefore, I am curious which definitions of repeatability, reproducibility and replicability are used in other disciplines.



What are the definitions most commonly associated to repeatability, reproducibility and replicability in your field?
Are the definitions the same but the concepts have substantially different meanings between fields e.g. because pseudo-random numbers generated by computer experiments are different from true randomness in biological experiments?










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I have seen many instances where authors used the term "reproducibility" and "replicability" interchangeably in the social and behavioural sciences. Sometimes, they distinguish between the "repeatability" of experiments (same measurand/same measurement conditions) and "replicability" (same measurand/different conditions). If the three concepts are differentiated than, in most cases, there seems to be an inherent hierarchy between the three concepts:
    repeatability < reproducibility < replicability
    Where a successful replication means that the same finding has been achieved with different data (or sometimes methods) and reproducibility means that it is possible to get the same results given the data and analytical means from the original study.



    However, it occurs to me that at least in computer science this seems to be different.[1]

    I am not aware of the situation in other fields. Therefore, I am curious which definitions of repeatability, reproducibility and replicability are used in other disciplines.



    What are the definitions most commonly associated to repeatability, reproducibility and replicability in your field?
    Are the definitions the same but the concepts have substantially different meanings between fields e.g. because pseudo-random numbers generated by computer experiments are different from true randomness in biological experiments?










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I have seen many instances where authors used the term "reproducibility" and "replicability" interchangeably in the social and behavioural sciences. Sometimes, they distinguish between the "repeatability" of experiments (same measurand/same measurement conditions) and "replicability" (same measurand/different conditions). If the three concepts are differentiated than, in most cases, there seems to be an inherent hierarchy between the three concepts:
      repeatability < reproducibility < replicability
      Where a successful replication means that the same finding has been achieved with different data (or sometimes methods) and reproducibility means that it is possible to get the same results given the data and analytical means from the original study.



      However, it occurs to me that at least in computer science this seems to be different.[1]

      I am not aware of the situation in other fields. Therefore, I am curious which definitions of repeatability, reproducibility and replicability are used in other disciplines.



      What are the definitions most commonly associated to repeatability, reproducibility and replicability in your field?
      Are the definitions the same but the concepts have substantially different meanings between fields e.g. because pseudo-random numbers generated by computer experiments are different from true randomness in biological experiments?










      share|improve this question















      I have seen many instances where authors used the term "reproducibility" and "replicability" interchangeably in the social and behavioural sciences. Sometimes, they distinguish between the "repeatability" of experiments (same measurand/same measurement conditions) and "replicability" (same measurand/different conditions). If the three concepts are differentiated than, in most cases, there seems to be an inherent hierarchy between the three concepts:
      repeatability < reproducibility < replicability
      Where a successful replication means that the same finding has been achieved with different data (or sometimes methods) and reproducibility means that it is possible to get the same results given the data and analytical means from the original study.



      However, it occurs to me that at least in computer science this seems to be different.[1]

      I am not aware of the situation in other fields. Therefore, I am curious which definitions of repeatability, reproducibility and replicability are used in other disciplines.



      What are the definitions most commonly associated to repeatability, reproducibility and replicability in your field?
      Are the definitions the same but the concepts have substantially different meanings between fields e.g. because pseudo-random numbers generated by computer experiments are different from true randomness in biological experiments?







      reproducible-research






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 3 hours ago

























      asked 3 hours ago









      non-numeric_argument

      1,024920




      1,024920




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The American Statistical Association (ASA) has developed Reproducible Research Recommendations. The purpose of these recommendations are to create transparent science that can be recreated independently of the data creators and analyzers. These recommendations have been motivated by several high profiles examples of studies being either retracted or not repeatable. The ASA includes definitions for Reproducibility and Replicability:




          Reproducibility: A study is reproducible if you can take the original data and the computer code used to analyze the data and reproduce all of the numerical findings from the study. This may initially sound like a trivial task but experience has shown that it’s not always easy to achieve this seemingly minimal standard.



          Replicability: This is the act of repeating an entire study, independently of the original
          investigator without the use of original data (but generally using the same methods).




          I do not know repeatability fits into these definitions or if it has a formal definition. Also, this hierarchy seems to differ from yours. Reproducibility is using exiting data and recreating the same results using the described methods. Replicability is conducting a new experiment and reaching the same conclusions.



          On a personal note, I have tried to reproduce studies while working with a statistician and most life science journal articles do not include enough details to exactly recreate analysis unless they include their script (e.g., Python, SAS, or R code used to analyze the data). We were trying to recreate simple linear regressions and ANOVAs to find case studies for undergraduate stats courses, but often got different regression coefficients and test statistics. For example, people often make assumptions about NA values or transformations that are not described in their formal writeup.



          For examples of replicability problems, search for psychology reproducibility problems. Also, notice the inconsistent use of the r terms here.



          For examples of reproducibility problems, this lecture describes how a forensic statistician uncovered the Duke Cancer Scandal a few years back. Although outright fraud was occurring, there were other serious issues with the data analyzes.






          share|improve this answer



























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            In computaitonal research I would argue that something is "reproducible" if I can rerun your analysis with your code and get the same answer as you did. This might sound trivial, with differences really only being connected to pseudo-random number generation, but in fact this is far from the truth.



            • Many computational studies do not provide their code.

            • Even where they do, recreating the exact compilation/execution environment is next to impossible.

              • Are you using the same compiler and version

              • Are you using the same numeric libraries (BLAS/MKL) and the same versions

              • Does your system use the same precision in its floating point calculations

              • etc etc etc


            You give me your code and enough information for me to produce and identical environment or (even better) your code is insenstive the environment, then your research is Repeatable.



            If you describe your study sufficiently well that I can re-implement your study from scratch, without looking at your code and still get the same answer, then it is Reproducible



            If I can arrive at the same conclusions as you, just from a description of its aims, then it is Replicable.






            share|improve this answer




















            • I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
              – Monika
              8 mins ago











            Your Answer







            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "415"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f118505%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-repeatability-replicability-and-reproducibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote













            The American Statistical Association (ASA) has developed Reproducible Research Recommendations. The purpose of these recommendations are to create transparent science that can be recreated independently of the data creators and analyzers. These recommendations have been motivated by several high profiles examples of studies being either retracted or not repeatable. The ASA includes definitions for Reproducibility and Replicability:




            Reproducibility: A study is reproducible if you can take the original data and the computer code used to analyze the data and reproduce all of the numerical findings from the study. This may initially sound like a trivial task but experience has shown that it’s not always easy to achieve this seemingly minimal standard.



            Replicability: This is the act of repeating an entire study, independently of the original
            investigator without the use of original data (but generally using the same methods).




            I do not know repeatability fits into these definitions or if it has a formal definition. Also, this hierarchy seems to differ from yours. Reproducibility is using exiting data and recreating the same results using the described methods. Replicability is conducting a new experiment and reaching the same conclusions.



            On a personal note, I have tried to reproduce studies while working with a statistician and most life science journal articles do not include enough details to exactly recreate analysis unless they include their script (e.g., Python, SAS, or R code used to analyze the data). We were trying to recreate simple linear regressions and ANOVAs to find case studies for undergraduate stats courses, but often got different regression coefficients and test statistics. For example, people often make assumptions about NA values or transformations that are not described in their formal writeup.



            For examples of replicability problems, search for psychology reproducibility problems. Also, notice the inconsistent use of the r terms here.



            For examples of reproducibility problems, this lecture describes how a forensic statistician uncovered the Duke Cancer Scandal a few years back. Although outright fraud was occurring, there were other serious issues with the data analyzes.






            share|improve this answer
























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              The American Statistical Association (ASA) has developed Reproducible Research Recommendations. The purpose of these recommendations are to create transparent science that can be recreated independently of the data creators and analyzers. These recommendations have been motivated by several high profiles examples of studies being either retracted or not repeatable. The ASA includes definitions for Reproducibility and Replicability:




              Reproducibility: A study is reproducible if you can take the original data and the computer code used to analyze the data and reproduce all of the numerical findings from the study. This may initially sound like a trivial task but experience has shown that it’s not always easy to achieve this seemingly minimal standard.



              Replicability: This is the act of repeating an entire study, independently of the original
              investigator without the use of original data (but generally using the same methods).




              I do not know repeatability fits into these definitions or if it has a formal definition. Also, this hierarchy seems to differ from yours. Reproducibility is using exiting data and recreating the same results using the described methods. Replicability is conducting a new experiment and reaching the same conclusions.



              On a personal note, I have tried to reproduce studies while working with a statistician and most life science journal articles do not include enough details to exactly recreate analysis unless they include their script (e.g., Python, SAS, or R code used to analyze the data). We were trying to recreate simple linear regressions and ANOVAs to find case studies for undergraduate stats courses, but often got different regression coefficients and test statistics. For example, people often make assumptions about NA values or transformations that are not described in their formal writeup.



              For examples of replicability problems, search for psychology reproducibility problems. Also, notice the inconsistent use of the r terms here.



              For examples of reproducibility problems, this lecture describes how a forensic statistician uncovered the Duke Cancer Scandal a few years back. Although outright fraud was occurring, there were other serious issues with the data analyzes.






              share|improve this answer






















                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                The American Statistical Association (ASA) has developed Reproducible Research Recommendations. The purpose of these recommendations are to create transparent science that can be recreated independently of the data creators and analyzers. These recommendations have been motivated by several high profiles examples of studies being either retracted or not repeatable. The ASA includes definitions for Reproducibility and Replicability:




                Reproducibility: A study is reproducible if you can take the original data and the computer code used to analyze the data and reproduce all of the numerical findings from the study. This may initially sound like a trivial task but experience has shown that it’s not always easy to achieve this seemingly minimal standard.



                Replicability: This is the act of repeating an entire study, independently of the original
                investigator without the use of original data (but generally using the same methods).




                I do not know repeatability fits into these definitions or if it has a formal definition. Also, this hierarchy seems to differ from yours. Reproducibility is using exiting data and recreating the same results using the described methods. Replicability is conducting a new experiment and reaching the same conclusions.



                On a personal note, I have tried to reproduce studies while working with a statistician and most life science journal articles do not include enough details to exactly recreate analysis unless they include their script (e.g., Python, SAS, or R code used to analyze the data). We were trying to recreate simple linear regressions and ANOVAs to find case studies for undergraduate stats courses, but often got different regression coefficients and test statistics. For example, people often make assumptions about NA values or transformations that are not described in their formal writeup.



                For examples of replicability problems, search for psychology reproducibility problems. Also, notice the inconsistent use of the r terms here.



                For examples of reproducibility problems, this lecture describes how a forensic statistician uncovered the Duke Cancer Scandal a few years back. Although outright fraud was occurring, there were other serious issues with the data analyzes.






                share|improve this answer












                The American Statistical Association (ASA) has developed Reproducible Research Recommendations. The purpose of these recommendations are to create transparent science that can be recreated independently of the data creators and analyzers. These recommendations have been motivated by several high profiles examples of studies being either retracted or not repeatable. The ASA includes definitions for Reproducibility and Replicability:




                Reproducibility: A study is reproducible if you can take the original data and the computer code used to analyze the data and reproduce all of the numerical findings from the study. This may initially sound like a trivial task but experience has shown that it’s not always easy to achieve this seemingly minimal standard.



                Replicability: This is the act of repeating an entire study, independently of the original
                investigator without the use of original data (but generally using the same methods).




                I do not know repeatability fits into these definitions or if it has a formal definition. Also, this hierarchy seems to differ from yours. Reproducibility is using exiting data and recreating the same results using the described methods. Replicability is conducting a new experiment and reaching the same conclusions.



                On a personal note, I have tried to reproduce studies while working with a statistician and most life science journal articles do not include enough details to exactly recreate analysis unless they include their script (e.g., Python, SAS, or R code used to analyze the data). We were trying to recreate simple linear regressions and ANOVAs to find case studies for undergraduate stats courses, but often got different regression coefficients and test statistics. For example, people often make assumptions about NA values or transformations that are not described in their formal writeup.



                For examples of replicability problems, search for psychology reproducibility problems. Also, notice the inconsistent use of the r terms here.



                For examples of reproducibility problems, this lecture describes how a forensic statistician uncovered the Duke Cancer Scandal a few years back. Although outright fraud was occurring, there were other serious issues with the data analyzes.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 2 hours ago









                Richard Erickson

                3,94221729




                3,94221729




















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    In computaitonal research I would argue that something is "reproducible" if I can rerun your analysis with your code and get the same answer as you did. This might sound trivial, with differences really only being connected to pseudo-random number generation, but in fact this is far from the truth.



                    • Many computational studies do not provide their code.

                    • Even where they do, recreating the exact compilation/execution environment is next to impossible.

                      • Are you using the same compiler and version

                      • Are you using the same numeric libraries (BLAS/MKL) and the same versions

                      • Does your system use the same precision in its floating point calculations

                      • etc etc etc


                    You give me your code and enough information for me to produce and identical environment or (even better) your code is insenstive the environment, then your research is Repeatable.



                    If you describe your study sufficiently well that I can re-implement your study from scratch, without looking at your code and still get the same answer, then it is Reproducible



                    If I can arrive at the same conclusions as you, just from a description of its aims, then it is Replicable.






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
                      – Monika
                      8 mins ago















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    In computaitonal research I would argue that something is "reproducible" if I can rerun your analysis with your code and get the same answer as you did. This might sound trivial, with differences really only being connected to pseudo-random number generation, but in fact this is far from the truth.



                    • Many computational studies do not provide their code.

                    • Even where they do, recreating the exact compilation/execution environment is next to impossible.

                      • Are you using the same compiler and version

                      • Are you using the same numeric libraries (BLAS/MKL) and the same versions

                      • Does your system use the same precision in its floating point calculations

                      • etc etc etc


                    You give me your code and enough information for me to produce and identical environment or (even better) your code is insenstive the environment, then your research is Repeatable.



                    If you describe your study sufficiently well that I can re-implement your study from scratch, without looking at your code and still get the same answer, then it is Reproducible



                    If I can arrive at the same conclusions as you, just from a description of its aims, then it is Replicable.






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
                      – Monika
                      8 mins ago













                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    In computaitonal research I would argue that something is "reproducible" if I can rerun your analysis with your code and get the same answer as you did. This might sound trivial, with differences really only being connected to pseudo-random number generation, but in fact this is far from the truth.



                    • Many computational studies do not provide their code.

                    • Even where they do, recreating the exact compilation/execution environment is next to impossible.

                      • Are you using the same compiler and version

                      • Are you using the same numeric libraries (BLAS/MKL) and the same versions

                      • Does your system use the same precision in its floating point calculations

                      • etc etc etc


                    You give me your code and enough information for me to produce and identical environment or (even better) your code is insenstive the environment, then your research is Repeatable.



                    If you describe your study sufficiently well that I can re-implement your study from scratch, without looking at your code and still get the same answer, then it is Reproducible



                    If I can arrive at the same conclusions as you, just from a description of its aims, then it is Replicable.






                    share|improve this answer












                    In computaitonal research I would argue that something is "reproducible" if I can rerun your analysis with your code and get the same answer as you did. This might sound trivial, with differences really only being connected to pseudo-random number generation, but in fact this is far from the truth.



                    • Many computational studies do not provide their code.

                    • Even where they do, recreating the exact compilation/execution environment is next to impossible.

                      • Are you using the same compiler and version

                      • Are you using the same numeric libraries (BLAS/MKL) and the same versions

                      • Does your system use the same precision in its floating point calculations

                      • etc etc etc


                    You give me your code and enough information for me to produce and identical environment or (even better) your code is insenstive the environment, then your research is Repeatable.



                    If you describe your study sufficiently well that I can re-implement your study from scratch, without looking at your code and still get the same answer, then it is Reproducible



                    If I can arrive at the same conclusions as you, just from a description of its aims, then it is Replicable.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 35 mins ago









                    Ian Sudbery

                    4,5191220




                    4,5191220











                    • I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
                      – Monika
                      8 mins ago

















                    • I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
                      – Monika
                      8 mins ago
















                    I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
                    – Monika
                    8 mins ago





                    I think this video is quite interesting about p-hacking: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q. I dont why almost published researches dont present the codes or raw data, thats why almost researches are not replicable and that what happened reported that the researches done by Schon is not reproducible which was fabricated research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
                    – Monika
                    8 mins ago


















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f118505%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-repeatability-replicability-and-reproducibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Comments

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What does second last employer means? [closed]

                    Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                    One-line joke