I suggest we need a replication-paper tag.
This would be about replication papers, and not the narrow issue of irreproducibility. The replication paper issue in its own right is touched upon frequently, but doesn't seem to get acknowledged as such:
- Are replication papers respected? as much as original research? What is their career value?
- My research (some replication, some original ideas) produced negative results. Is this publishable (e.g. as a replication paper)?
- How to go about trying to replicate someone else's work?
- What are reasonable expectations of reproducibility?
- Best practices to make my published work/results/code/data replicatable?
- How to get access to data? Can I expect access to source code? with attached restrictions?
- How to phrase correspondence with authors if I encounter problems with irreproducibility?
- How to handle replication when the code/data are not open-source/ have restrictions attached?
- Have researchers any incentive to publish negative or confirmatory results?
- Where do researchers get the money to replicate others' work?
- How to deal with papers/authors that provide no details of implementation?
- Can I request the code behind a research paper from the author?
- Why do many talented scientists write horrible software?
- (Answer) How can I get into computer science research as a high school student?
- How accurate are published papers?
- Should I cite all R packages I used?
- What to do when research leads to poor results?
There are 106 hits for 'replication'.