Is reproducibility good for scientific progress? (a paper review)

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.

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.

GRN · German Reproducibility Network

Working together for trustworthy and useful research

ReScience organization

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

Maybe scientific progress isn’t slowing, after all

A new paper takes aim at the claim that science has become less disruptive

The Discovery Engine: A Framework for AI-Driven Synthesis and Navigation of Scientific Knowledge Landscapes

Scientific progress relies on the effective accumulation, synthesis, and critical evaluation of knowledge. Traditionally, the well-documented, peer reviewed publication served as the primary standard for filtering and disseminating credible findings within the scientific community. Recently, however, we are witnessing an unprecedented acceleration in research output, a veritable explosion of scientific publications across all disciplines [1]. Yet, this very abundance creates a paradox: the sheer volume threatens to overwhelm the mechanisms designed for its assimilation and synthesis. Researchers, even within highly specialized subfields, face an almost insurmountable challenge in keeping abreast of relevant developments, integrating disparate findings, and identifying the truly novel signals amidst the noise [2]. This information overload contributes to disciplinary fragmentation, hindering the cross-pollination of ideas essential for disruptive innovation [3]. Furthermore, persistent concerns regarding "reproducibility crisis" [2], predatory journals, inflation of research areas[4], growing retractions and the potential influences of bibliometrics on research direction [5] highlight systemic challenges in validating and prioritizing scientific contributions to fundamental knowledge.

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

The Bazaar of Scientific Knowledge | shishyko!

Is the current form of the scientific paper still optimal in 2025? How do we preserve, and efficiently leverage, the uncut gems of the scientific process?

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.

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)...

Is the scientific paper still a fraud?

How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science. Their formal structure infers a pre-ordained linear process rather than reflecting the messy creativity of research. This matters in the AI age because it masks the human in the process.

Jason Shepherd on Twitter / X

I have quite a lot of thoughts on this..that won't fit in a tweet. Bottomline is that there are issues scientists in the US would love to improve - faster review, less grant writing, more stability and freedom to do risky science. The folks celebrating this doc are mostly../1 https://t.co/xlPAH9XYNC— Jason Shepherd (@JasonSynaptic) July 23, 2026