It doesn't matter much beyond semantics. Math papers aren't experiments so they can't replicate. However, math papers can still be wrong! Especially the actual

It doesn't matter much beyond semantics. Math papers aren't experiments so they can't replicate. However, math papers can still be wrong! Especially the actual proofs can be wrong. The question is, how many wrong proofs are out there, and how many of them have false conclusions. If we accept that most published proofs have errors, why isn't that a horrifying failure of Mathematics that shakes fundamental trust in its systems. That is what the article is about. This hypothetical shaking of fundamental trust would be highly analogous to the replication crisis. And there are more parallel arguments. So to me the premise makes sense, and I see little problem with some semantic wiggle room for sake of analogy.