I suggest we need a 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?


There are 106 hits for 'replication'.


The number of search hits for a keyword is not necessarily a good indication of how much it is needed as a tag.

If we limit the search to questions containing "replication," there are fewer results and many are not relevant (i.e. mention replication only tangentially).

I am of the opinion that suffices for the small number of questions about reproducing or replicating someone else's research. (I think it's OK to expand the scope of the tag slightly to accommodate replication.)

  • I already said it's not just about irreproducibility. I suggested we need a tag for replication-paper, which is separate and is something frequently touched upon. A replication paper is about much much more than the narrow issue of whether something is reproducible. Let me go add clarification to the question. – smci Jun 23 '15 at 22:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .