[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!

Dieter Menne dieter.menne at menne-biomed.de
Sun Dec 21 11:42:03 CET 2008

Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard <at> biostat.ku.dk> writes:

> Why do so many people have such trouble with the word "reproducible"? We 
> can't reproduce that without access to weblog_by_date!

In a strict sense, the example is "reproducible" as opposite to "spurious".
Reproducible research means that you can get the same results whe you buy 
an ultracentrifuge, high-grade chemicals, a safety lab, and a technician 
with a golden hand .:)

We should probably better use "self-running" instead, or whatever a 
native speaker would suggest as an alternative. Even in German I do not know 
of a better word; it should be "that can be pasted into rterm and give the 
same result".


More information about the R-help mailing list