Journal
AXIOMATHES
Volume 32, Issue SUPPL 2, Pages 647-670Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10516-021-09610-2
Keywords
Replicability; Reproducibility; Replicability crisis; Method reproducibility; Direct replicability; Conceptual replicability; Precision; Accuracy; Reliability; Validity
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Replicability is considered a cornerstone of science. However, the increasing number of nonreplicable experiments in scientific journals, known as the "replicability crisis," has sparked a debate on the meaning, function, and importance of replicability in science. It is clear that replicability is not a singular concept, and there is still controversy surrounding the terminological and conceptual distinctions between different types of replicability. This paper aims to clarify the various uses of terms related to replicability and to specify the different types of replicability and their respective epistemic functions.
Replicability is usually considered to be one of the cornerstones of science; however, the growing recognition of nonreplicable experiments and studies in scientific journals-a phenomenon that has been called 'replicability crisis'-has spurred a debate on the meaning, function, and significance of replicability in science. Amid this discussion, it has become clear that replicability is not a monolithic concept; what is still controversial is exactly how the distinction between different kinds of replicability should be laid out terminologically and conceptually, and to what extent it bears on the more general debate on the centrality of replicability in science. This paper's goals are to clarify the different uses of the terms related to replicability and, more importantly, to conceptually specify the kinds of replicability and their respective epistemic functions.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available