4 ms·
1. There are many places this could have been published without an importance review, eg PLoS ONE. 2. I think anyone interested in the replication problem need
by skosuri 10y ago
1. There are many places this could have been published without an importance review, eg PLoS ONE.
2. I think anyone interested in the replication problem needs to read this piece [1] by Peter Walter. As he put it: "It is much harder to replicate than to declare failure.".
[1] http://www.ascb.org/on-reproducibility-and-clocks/ http://www.ascb.org/on-reproducibility-and-clocks/
- tmalsburg2 10y agoUnfortunately, the importance of the journal you publish in is decisive for whether or not you get a job in academia. It's fucked up but people like the author of the blog post are not in the position to change that.
- laughinghan 10y agoRe: 1. As stated in the concluding paragraph, she put it on researchgate.
- argonaut 10y agoShe's talking about point 1) when she talks about open access journals (plos one is an open access journal).
- mattkrause 10y agoAlternately, it would have worked really well as a "Registered Report." Cortex now offers a format where the paper is submitted in two stages. One first submits the introduction/background, methods, and proposed analysis, before collecting data. If the reviews are favorable, the paper is accepted, regardless of how the results turn out. There is a second round of reviews for the final manuscript to assess the quality of the data and ensure that the pre-determined analysis plan was followed. More here: http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%20Guidelines_RR_29_04_2013.pdf http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%... I've had a hard time selling collaborators on it ("TWO ROUNDS OF REVIEW?! Isn't one slow and painful enough?!"), but I really like this idea. It rewards interesting hypotheses and good experimental design, but avoids the ask-a-stupid-question-get-a-stupid-answer issue with null results.