To illustrate further on my long post regarding definitions ...
ReScience/ReScience-article#5 (comment)
... here is a quick review of usage in the ReScience guideline documents in this repo.
README.md
"ReScience is a peer-reviewed journal that targets computational research and encourages the explicit reproduction of already published research promoting new and open-source implementations in order to ensure the original research is reproducible."
The first use of “reproduction” here would have to be swapped to “replication” to be consistent with Claerbout/Donoho/Peng, but the use of “reproducible” at the end is not problematic: by replicating the original study and releasing all the (new) code and data, the research is now reproducible.
"If you ever reproduced [a] computational result from the literature… publish this new implementation.” ⟶ In talking of a new code implementation here, the scenario is likely that the original study did not publish code and data. The text would be consistent with Peng’s usage if it read instead “If you ever replicated a computational result …” (i.e.,replicate the findings using new code to obtain new data).
Note that the slogan of the journal is perfectly consistent with the Claerbout/Donoho/Peng usage: Reproducible Science is Good. Replicated Science is better. Peng (2011) says that “replication is the ultimate standard,” i.e., arriving at the same findings (with new code, new data). Reproducible research, he says, is a minimum standard.
author-guidelines.md
The suggested text for the submission description says:
"I request a review for the replication of the following paper:
References of the paper holding results you're replicating
I believed the original results have been faithfully replicated
as explained in the accompanying article."
Here, the use of “replication" is in line with the idea that an independent group collected new data to produce replication of the findings (results) from the original study. ⟶ consistent with Peng.
reviewer-guidelines.md
"The main criterion for acceptation is the actual replication of the research …” ⟶ implies that the study was replicated, new data was collected arriving at the same findings. Consistent usage. (though “acceptation” is wrong: should be “acceptance”)
"ensure the proposed submission is actually replicable.” ⟶ here, the term should be “reproducible” to be consistent with Claerbout/Donoho/Peng
"ReScience targets replication of original research” ⟶ no problem
(I did not go over the ReScience website, where I know that at least the FAQs has the "swapped" terminology."