5 ms·
I think that's a pretty great idea actually. If anyone here has the reach to get this on their table please do reach out. It would be even greater if they'd use
by kriro 10y ago
I think that's a pretty great idea actually. If anyone here has the reach to get this on their table please do reach out. It would be even greater if they'd use some replication metric in their ranking algorithm for the papers.
The danger however is that this would just lead to only me-too studies being accepted and failed replications still being rejected.
I'd also love if they'd add (possibly Google hosted) repositories where the data/scripts etc. that belong to the paper can be uploaded and archived for all eternity.
- mwambua 10y agoI saw something like this a while ago... Codalab (http://codalab.org/ http://codalab.org/). It's run by Percy Liang (https://cs.stanford.edu/~pliang/ https://cs.stanford.edu/~pliang/). It lets you create executable worksheets to go with your papers; and people can validate both the code and data used in your experiments.
- chronic81 10y agohttp://gitxiv.com http://gitxiv.com is far superior than Codalab. Source: I go to Stanford.
- mwambua 10y agoInteresting... It seems broken right now; but the github & arxiv integration sounds pretty cool, so I'll keep an eye on it.
- kriro 10y agoLooks pretty cool indeed, bookmarked. However I believe it is focused on Computer Science. Nothing wrong with that but I think they key is convincing scientists that are not exposed to ideas like version control, open source (and I'd argue data sharing due to the rise of data mining) by default (or are less computer savvy in general).