Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and attribution in our field Page: 4
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
4 - Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker et at.
and the need to engender broad sociological shift in our field with regard to
reproducible research through education, outreach, and policy development.
Section 5 contains summary recommendations on actions that can be taken by
linguistics researchers, departments, committees, and publishers, as well as
some concluding remarks.
2 On valuing reproducibility in science
Reproducible research aims to provide scientific accountability by facilitating
access for other researchers to the data upon which research conclusions are
based. The term, and its value as a principle of scientific rigor, has arisen
primarily in computer science (e.g., Buckheit and Donoho 1995; de Leeuw
2001; Donoho 2010), where easy access to data and code allows other research-
ers to verify and refute putative claims. In a 2009 post on The open science
project, a blog dedicated to open source tools and research, Dan Gezelter
summarizes reproducible research thus:
If a scientist makes a claim that a skeptic can only reproduce by spending three
decades writing and debugging a complex computer program that exactly replicates
the workings of a commercial code, the original claim is really only reproducible in
principle. [...] Our view is that it is not healthy for scientific papers to be supported by
computations that cannot be reproduced except by a few employees at a commercial
software developer [...] it may be research and it may be important, but unless enough
details of the experimental methodology are made available so that it can be subjected
to true reproducibility tests by skeptics, it isn't Science. (Gezelter 2009; emphasis
Reproducibility in research is an evolution of replicability, a long-standing tenet
of the scientific method with which most readers are likely to already be
familiar. Replicable research methods are those that can be recreated elsewhere
by other scientists, leading to new data; sound scientific claims are those that
can be confirmed by the new data in a replicated study.
The difference between reproducible research and replicable research is
that the latter produces new data, which can then ostensibly be analyzed for
either confirmation or disconfirmation of previous results; the former pro-
vides access to the original data for independent analysis. The benefit of
reproducibility is evident in cases where faithfully recreating the research
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
Here’s what’s next.
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Berez-Kroeker, Andrea; Gawne, Lauren; Kung, Susan Smythe; Kelly, Barbara F.; Heston, Tyler; Holton, Gary et al. Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and attribution in our field, article, December 6, 2017; Berlin, Germany. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1114899/m1/4/: accessed April 20, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT College of Information.