11–20 of 282 posts
Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay for the repeated research to prove the first one?
Totally agree. I'd go even further and make free licenses on scientific source and datasets mandatory. Research that is funded by public money should lead to public code and data.
What about defense research?
I thought this was in the definition of "scientific"
I'm a physician and I've been suggesting this to my colleagues for a few years, only to be met with alienated stares and labeled cynical. The doctors and doctors-in-training I work with have altruistic motives, but place too much stock in major medical studies. They also frequently apply single-study findings to patient care, even to patients that would've been excluded from that study (saw this a lot with the recent…
how do you incorporate these findings? ignore them?
if so, it's probably bad for your patients. the only thing worse than a single-study finding is a zero-study finding.
Maybe conferences should have a "reproducibility" track for that purpose? Also, I don't know about other fields, but I'm pretty sure that in CS, if you just took a paper and tried to reproduce the results, you'll get rejected on the ground that you offer no original contribution; no original contribution => no publication => no funding.
Real issue is that the way science is funded is broken.
I thought this was in the definition of "scientific"
Peer review is how most science is defined as science and peer review does not require reproduction of the work.
For example, much of computer "science" is not. Math maybe, engineering probably, design sometimes, but "science" is rarely done. BUT the science envy is there, especially post 1990s, and it is as confusing as heck when multiple definitions of "science" collide in a conference culture.
Yes I'm a researcher, no I'm not a scientist.
Maybe conferences should have a "reproducibility" track for that purpose? Also, I don't know about other fields, but I'm pretty sure that in CS, if you just took a paper and tried to reproduce the results, you'll get rejected on the ground that you offer no original contribution; no original contribution => no publication => no funding.
The big issue right now is funding of replicated research, who wants to fund a research to prove someone else was right? Most of these funds are granted based on potential outcome of the new discovery like: potential business, patents, licenses, etc... not being the first one would probably wipe most of these benefits, cutting down to a small probably getting funded... Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay f…
Incentive for corrupting the data seems high, however.