  This paper presents a partial reproduction of Generating Fact Checking
Explanations by Anatanasova et al (2020) as part of the ReproHum element of the
ReproNLP shared task to reproduce the findings of NLP research regarding human
evaluation. This shared task aims to investigate the extent to which NLP as a
field is becoming more or less reproducible over time. Following the
instructions provided by the task organisers and the original authors, we
collect relative rankings of 3 fact-checking explanations (comprising a gold
standard and the outputs of 2 models) for 40 inputs on the criteria of
Coverage. The results of our reproduction and reanalysis of the original work's
raw results lend support to the original findings, with similar patterns seen
between the original work and our reproduction. Whilst we observe slight
variation from the original results, our findings support the main conclusions
drawn by the original authors pertaining to the efficacy of their proposed
models.
