What does research reproducibility mean?

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Translational Medicine  01 Jun 2016:
Vol. 8, Issue 341, pp. 341ps12
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Science and Truth

    The most significant lesson that Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the greatest philosophers of the last century, left us, is that usually philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of language. At first glance, sometimes this might be the case also for science. Semantic and conceptual confusion of “research reproducibility” had a negative impact on the debate about the “replicability crisis” in psychological and biomedical science, to such an extent that there was not even a consensus on the results of the recent OSF Reproducibility Project. That is why Goodman’s paper (1) is a windfall. Yet, one his most valuable intuitions might not receive the attention it deserves. Goodman makes clear that we are not concerned about reproducibility of experiments per se, but about the truth of scientific claims inferred and warranted by those experiments. However, as soon as one starts to focus on truth he realizes how elusive and unintelligible such a concept is. This intellectual challenge might be tricky and high-risk, but worth being met.
    But then again, the quality of research seems to be the conditio sine qua non for science to reach some kind of truth. Indeed, everyone would agree that honest, responsible, and transparent research has more chance to produce true results. But why is this the case? Because by doing transparent research we can keep track of the work of our peers, control for biases, and correct errors. In a word, self-correction. Hence, implementing resea...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science Translational Medicine

Navigate This Article