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

[Tom Morris]

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

Tom


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/science-at/attachments/20131023/fc2946bf/attachment.html>