[open-science] Discussion on "reproducible" as a new quality criterion

Tom Morris tfmorris at gmail.com
Wed Oct 23 14:22:47 BST 2013

That appears to attempting to redefine the word "reproducible" to mean
reproducible by someone other than the original experimenter.  Both types
are useful.


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Peter Kraker <pkraker at know-center.at>wrote:

> Hi all,
> I recently wrote a post on reproduciblity in science on the OKFN Science
> blog. Scott Williams (@algae) has kicked off a discussion on Twitter; I
> asked him to add his comments to the post which he did. Would be great to
> get all of your opinions on this topic as well!
> http://science.okfn.org/2013/10/18/its-not-only-peer-reviewed-its-reproducible/
> Best,
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131023/fc2946bf/attachment.htm>

More information about the open-science mailing list