Kinds of Replicability: Different Terms and Different Functions

Replicability is usually considered to be one of the cornerstones of science; however, the growing recognition of nonreplicable experiments and studies in scientific journals-a phenomenon that has been called 'replicability crisis'-has spurred a debate on the meaning, function, and significance of replicability in science. Amid this discussion, it has become clear that replicability is not a monolithic concept; what is still controversial is exactly how the distinction between different kinds of replicability should be laid out terminologically and conceptually, and to what extent it bears on the more general debate on the centrality of replicability in science. This paper's goals are to clarify the different uses of the terms related to replicability and, more importantly, to conceptually specify the kinds of replicability and their respective epistemic functions.

Automated summary

Replicability is considered a cornerstone of science. However, the increasing number of nonreplicable experiments in scientific journals, known as the "replicability crisis," has sparked a debate on the meaning, function, and importance of replicability in science. It is clear that replicability is not a singular concept, and there is still controversy surrounding the terminological and conceptual distinctions between different types of replicability. This paper aims to clarify the various uses of terms related to replicability and to specify the different types of replicability and their respective epistemic functions.