Hi Andre, thanks for your valuable comments. We did not attempt to recreate the study conditions or redo the analysis. Our conclusion is that we would fail if we tried. But I understand the confusion, as pointed out by @Heinomatti and thanks to @lakens.
-
-
Replying to @Burak_AYD1N @andrewang91 and
We did not use reproducibility as computational reproducibility. I assume you are also suggesting the term 'non-replicable'? However, we used OSC as our starting point (Lakens says he would not do so.) Please notice that OSC completed 100 replications and estimated the
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Burak_AYD1N @andrewang91 and
I know what the OCS did. I am one of the authors of the paper. It estimated the *replicability*. Reproducibility is same results with same data. The terminology has been consolidated, and I would adhere to current norms, not one project started in 2011.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lakens @andrewang91 and
Dr. Lakens, that`s why I asked your guidance and asked "if we should prepare an errata?" PS Even though the project started in 2011, the paper was out in 2015 and we started to work on the paper in 2016.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Burak_AYD1N @lakens and
Eiko Fried Retweeted Brian Nosek
Eiko Fried added,
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @EikoFried @Burak_AYD1N and
For what it's worth, Burak, I don't think there's a strong consensus on terms even among the most engaged in the methods reform movement. Your use isn't so uncommon (though it may have a somewhat ambiguous English meaning)
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @psforscher @EikoFried and
I personally like the term "computational reproducibility" for the ability to use code to get the same results from the same dataset and replicability/reproducibility for the same results from a different dataset
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @psforscher @EikoFried and
I have no idea if an erratum is necessary in your case. What you intended is pretty clear from the paper. The sentence I quoted is a bit ambiguous, which is why people reacted -- so maybe these reactions are partly my fault (woops)
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
-
Replying to @Burak_AYD1N @psforscher and
I think there are about three different types of computational reproducibility (at least), so this really is a huge semantic quagmire. Extract from: http://oliviaguest.com/doc/guest_rougier_2016.pdf …pic.twitter.com/WcKLvpZ2mU
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes
It's called "What is Computational Reproducibility?" and has replies from many modelers in a few different areas of psych/neuro, so might be useful to people in this thread to read their takes.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.