  This is the first part of a small-scale explorative study in an effort to
start assessing reproducibility issues specific to scientometrics research.
This effort is motivated by the desire to generate empirical data to inform
debates about reproducibility in scientometrics. Rather than attempt to
reproduce studies, we explore how we might assess "in principle"
reproducibility based on a critical review of the content of published papers.
The first part of the study focuses on direct reproducibility - that is the
ability to reproduce the specific evidence produced by an original study using
the same data, methods, and procedures. The second part (Velden et al. 2018) is
dedicated to conceptual reproducibility - that is the robustness of knowledge
claims towards verification by an alternative approach using different data,
methods and procedures. The study is exploratory: it investigates only a very
limited number of publications and serves us to develop instruments for
identifying potential reproducibility issues of published studies: These are a
categorization of study types and a taxonomy of threats to reproducibility. We
work with a select sample of five publications in scientometrics covering a
variation of study types of theoretical, methodological, and empirical nature.
Based on observations made during our exploratory review, we conclude this
paper with open questions on how to approach and assess the status of direct
reproducibility in scientometrics, intended for discussion at the special track
on "Reproducibility in Scientometrics" at STI2018 in Leiden.
