We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
1–10 of 282 posts
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#2Totally 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.
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#3We now have the tools to do it , and we should be doing it. The fate of scientific findings is not to publish papers, they belong to open and continuous scrutiny. And someone should build a github of scientific facts.
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#4Totally 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?
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#5I thought this was in the definition of "scientific"
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#6Maybe 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.
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#7I'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 SPRINT blood pressure trial).
And don't even get me started on the pulmonary embolism treatment studies. What a clinical mess that is.
It's frustrating.
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#8Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#9Maybe 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.
Re: We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated
#10this increasingly includes code that needs to run in the future, and citations within code, see this group working in that field https://www.force11.org/sites/default/files/shared-documents...