search

whole-tale / reproducibility-components

Models and queries of scientific reproducibility
MIT License
1 stars 2 forks source link

Clarify that we are not arguing for particular definitions #2

Closed tmcphillips closed 5 years ago

tmcphillips commented 5 years ago

Reviewer comment R2.12, R2.13:

The article spends a decent amount of text exploring the discrepancies between the FASEB and NAS definitions, seeming to argue for more deference to the FASEB perspective. I would suggest more focus on the RO solutions in the text.

We should clarify we are not saying that one set of definitions is better than the other. Precisely the opposite--the emphasis on the differences should highlight the need for multiple definitions.

At the same time it looks like we need to state more explicitly that the FASEB definitions are neither uninformed nor arbitrary.

tmcphillips commented 5 years ago

Footnote 4 now explains why for experimental biologists "the assignment of meanings to the terms reproducibility and replicability is neither arbitrary nor uninformed."

tmcphillips commented 5 years ago

Added this statement:

By highlighting these apparent limitations in the NAS definitions of reproducibility and replicability we are not arguing that the FASEB definitions of these terms are superior. We do not propose that the latter definitions be adopted universally instead. On the contrary, we suggest that the differences in the content of these (and the many other) definitions of these two terms likely reflect specific, critical needs of the researchers and communities that adopt them.