Not only the description of these two badges should be exchanged, but also the way AECs award badges should also change.
Does anyone else think that ACM's "replicated" and "reproduced" artifact badges are mixed up? I usually think of *reproducing* the results of an analysis (on the same data), but *replicating* a study (by collecting new data).pic.twitter.com/krgGXcTw8i
-
-
-
Given the current definition, the highest badge a paper by the AEC of the same conference can get should be replicated, as AEC only verifies the submitted artifact. Reproduced should be given to papers whose results can be reproduced later by another study from a different group.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I don't think the terms "replicate" and "reproduce" are used consistently throughout SE or across fields. Some people treat them as synonyms.
-
There is a NISO task force who are focusing on fixing this issue. Headed by
@LorenaABarba and others. Here is a report they have written that explains the situation very clearly https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1481626-toward-compatible-reproducibility-taxonomy-computational-computing-sciences … - Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
How so? The meaning of the words seems correct to me and in line with what you'd expect given the etymology of the words. Replicate = repeat / copy the experiment using the same setup. Reproduce = remake the experiment with a new setup.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.