Cited by 155Philosophy and History of ScienceScientific Computing and Data ManagementAnimal testing and alternatives

Replicates and repeats—what is the difference and is it significant?: A brief discussion of statistics and experimental design

Open access
Vaux, David L, Fidler, Fiona, Cumming, Geoff·2012·The EMBO Reports

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/embor.2012.36

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Merely understanding what experimental unit was used by a particular lab could be challenging, due to the lack of standardized terminology to define this among researchers.

    “Moreover, merely understanding what experimental unit was used by a particular lab could be challenging, due to the lack of standardized terminology to define this among researchers (Lazic et al., 2018;Vaux et al., 2012).”

    From Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science (2025) · cites this paper as Vaux et al., 2012

    In “What should we look for when reading papers?” (page not specified in our copy), Vaux et al. warn that readers may need to scrutinize figure legends to determine whether results come from replicates or independent experiments, and that legends may omit this information. This supports the difficulty of identifying the experimental unit, but the paper attributes that difficulty to unclear reporting, not to a lack of standardized terminology among researchers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vaux, D. L., Fidler, F., & Cumming, G.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Venue
The EMBO Reports
Published
2012-03-16
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
291-296
ISSN
  • 1469-221X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3178
OpenAlex
W2022023730
Cited by
155
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
41.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EMBO Reports (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
replicates, repetitive elements, scientific hypothesis testing, experimental design, reproducibility, statistical significance
MeSH terms
Animals, Bone Marrow Cells, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review