  Reproducible research---by its many names---has come to be regarded as a key
concern across disciplines and stakeholder groups. Funding agencies and
journals, professional societies and even mass media are paying attention,
often focusing on the so-called "crisis" of reproducibility. One big problem
keeps coming up among those seeking to tackle the issue: different groups are
using terminologies in utter contradiction with each other. Looking at a broad
sample of publications in different fields, we can classify their terminology
via decision tree: they either, A---make no distinction between the words
reproduce and replicate, or B---use them distinctly. If B, then they are
commonly divided in two camps. In a spectrum of concerns that starts at a
minimum standard of "same data+same methods=same results," to "new data and/or
new methods in an independent study=same findings," group 1 calls the minimum
standard reproduce, while group 2 calls it replicate. This direct swap of the
two terms aggravates an already weighty issue. By attempting to inventory the
terminologies across disciplines, I hope that some patterns will emerge to help
us resolve the contradictions.
