Konrad Hinsen's blog

Konrad Hinsen's blog

Thirty years after my first contact with computational (ir)reproducibility, I am happy to note that many things have improved. Reproducibility, computational and otherwise, is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of scientific quality control, and mostly considered worth striving for. However, I also note that more and more people, including reproducibility activists, have lost contact with the day-to-day reality in which reproducibility matters. Reproducibility is becoming an item on a checklist, and its precise incarnation the subject of political bickering aimed at making it easy to check off that item. So let's take a look at why computational reproducibility matters for researchers.

Reproducibility in Machine Learning-based Research: Overview, Barriers and Drivers

The concept of reproducibility can have different interpretations across various research fields and even within the same field [39]. To avoid confusion, we first specify our terms, broadly defining reproducibility and then further categorizing it into various types and degrees. The first distinction comes from Goodman et al. [42], who specify a fundamental division between whether we (i) mean reproducible in principle (termed “methods” reproducibility) due to sufficient description/sharing of methodologies, materials, etc., or (ii) whether results/conclusions actually prove to be reproducible when experiments or analyses are re-done. In the second category, they distinguish “results” and “inferential” reproducibility, depending on whether the analyses or inferences to broader conclusions are reproduced.

GRN · German Reproducibility Network

Working together for trustworthy and useful research

Keynote: Reproducibility and replicability of computer simulations | Canal U

Since the early days of the reproducibility crisis, much progress has been made in understanding and improving computational reproducibility and replicability (R and R)...

Unreproducible Research is Reproducible

The apparent contradiction in the title is a wordplay on the different meanings attributed to the word reproducible across different scientific fields. What we imply is that unreproducible findings can be built upon reproducible methods. Without denying the importance of facilitating the reproduction of methods, we deem important to reassert that reproduction of findings is a fundamental step of the scientific inquiry. We argue that the commendable quest towards easy deterministic reproducibility of methods and numerical results should not have us forget the even more important necessity of ensuring the reproducibility of empirical findings and conclusions by properly accounting for essential sources of variations. We provide experiments to exemplify the brittleness of current common practice in the evaluation of models in the field of deep learning, showing that even if the results could be reproduced, a slightly different experiment would not support the findings. We hope to help clarify the distinction between exploratory and empirical research in the field of deep learning and believe more energy should be devoted to proper empirical research in our community. This work is an attempt to promote the use of more rigorous and diversified methodologies. It is not an attempt to impose a new methodology and it is not a critique on the nature of exploratory research.

Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything?

Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.

ReScience organization

Reproducible Science is good. Replicated Science is better. - ReScience organization

Konrad Hinsen's blog

By now, most scientists have probably seen figures, tables, and even entire journal articles made by so-called "generative AI", containing more or less subtle mistakes or inconsistencies. What I haven't seen yet, but expect to see soon, is the scientific equivalent of deepfakes: made-up results that come with made-up code that reproduces them. This is likely to become a new challenge for reproducible research.

The Conversation Canada (@ca.theconversation.com)

Written by academic experts, edited by journalists, backed by evidence ✉️ Newsletter: http://bit.ly/2W8X3Ev 🎧 Podcast: http://bit.ly/39v1EE0 ➕ Donate: http://bit.ly/3GV1uam

Andreas De Block on Twitter / X

It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026

Speculations on the Future of the Scientific Method

The following essay was published 20 years ago (January, 2006) on my blog The Technium. I edited the intro here, but the speculations are basically unchanged.

Small Telescopes - Uri Simonsohn, 2015

This article introduces a new approach for evaluating replication results. It combines effect-size estimation with hypothesis testing, assessing the extent to w...

The AI Chemist: To be trustworthy, LLMs need to show their work

Good scientists reveal how they do their experiments and report their results; so should any machine-driven research

Konrad Hinsen's blog

How can we document software and computational analyses in such a way that others can convince themselves of their validity, and build on them for their own work? The question has been around for many years, and a number of attempts have been made to provide partial answers. This post provides a brief review and describes my own tentative answer, inviting you to play with it.

The Robyn Dawes Institute for the Improvement of Science

Making research quality visible so everyone can act on reliable evidence.