I find the the background on reproducibility you provide to be a helpful introduction to the topic! However, I wonder whether the Gundersen (2021) paper serves your purpose: It explicitly does not discriminate between reproducing and replicating studies...
No distinction is made between reproducibility and replication [...].
...which ultimately muddies the waters, as using {renv} is only about recreating the computational environment, and not about conducting another experiment.
One could alternatively use the definition by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:
[R]eproducibility is obtaining consistent results using the same input data; computational steps, methods, and code; and conditions of analysis.
— National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, p. 46. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.
Thanks for the feedback on this! I was increasingly feeling like the Gundersen quote was a bit out of place anyway so this looks like a good alternative to use.
I find the the background on reproducibility you provide to be a helpful introduction to the topic! However, I wonder whether the Gundersen (2021) paper serves your purpose: It explicitly does not discriminate between reproducing and replicating studies...
...which ultimately muddies the waters, as using {renv} is only about recreating the computational environment, and not about conducting another experiment.
One could alternatively use the definition by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: