14 ms·

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 o

by bontoJR 10y ago

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 for the repeated research to prove the first one?

avindroth 10y ago
Perhaps those who are skeptical of the first research (and are losing money from it) should fund the replication research. Incentive for corrupting the data seems high, however.
- bontoJR 10y ago
  This works for some "controversial" researches, which can be dismantled. What about successful (or apparently) ones which may lead to tons of $$$ in return? Is there any value to pay for a research which is going to prove someone else was right ending in making their wallets fatter? Sorry for the informal language, but makes things a little bit more salty.
  - avindroth 10y ago
    If someone is making money from it, someone else is (most likely) losing money from it as well. When the lightbulb was invented, Edison made lots of money, but I am sure candlemakers had plenty of incentive to fund research that hypothesized that lightbulbs emitted toxins.
jjp 10y ago
> Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay for the repeated research to prove the first one? Who is and who should are two different questions. The body who funded the original research should be best placed to fund the verification of the research. If the research isn't compelling enough to fund verification then why was it funded in the first place? And if the principle research group is requesting additional funding for more research that builds on the initial unverified research then that sounds like poor governance. I realise that this simplistic view gets messy and confused when research is really academic led innovation and incubation.
wodenokoto 10y ago
On a low level, I think it should be mandatory for masters students to do a pre-thesis project, which is replicating findings in a published paper. It would do something about low hanging fruit in terms of testing reproduceability and since there is a published paper, the student has access to guidelines for setting up and reporting on a large project, which will help them learn how to do their own, original thesis.
- tnhh 10y ago
  I had my Masters students do this as part of my wireless networking class this year. It was very instructive for me and the students seemed to enjoy it, so I'll definitely keep it in the syllabus.
fragola 10y ago
We can all donate to organizations like the Reproducibility Project: https://osf.io/ezcuj/ https://osf.io/ezcuj/ But yeah, larger entities (universities, businesses) should also be factoring the cost of reproduction when they commission research.

by bontoJR 10y ago

avindroth 10y ago

Perhaps those who are skeptical of the first research (and are losing money from it) should fund the replication research. Incentive for corrupting the data seems high, however.

bontoJR 10y ago
This works for some "controversial" researches, which can be dismantled. What about successful (or apparently) ones which may lead to tons of $$$ in return? Is there any value to pay for a research which is going to prove someone else was right ending in making their wallets fatter? Sorry for the informal language, but makes things a little bit more salty.
- avindroth 10y ago
  If someone is making money from it, someone else is (most likely) losing money from it as well. When the lightbulb was invented, Edison made lots of money, but I am sure candlemakers had plenty of incentive to fund research that hypothesized that lightbulbs emitted toxins.

jjp 10y ago

> Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay for the repeated research to prove the first one? Who is and who should are two different questions. The body who funded the original research should be best placed to fund the verification of the research. If the research isn't compelling enough to fund verification then why was it funded in the first place? And if the principle research group is requesting additional funding for more research that builds on the initial unverified research then that sounds like poor governance. I realise that this simplistic view gets messy and confused when research is really academic led innovation and incubation.

wodenokoto 10y ago

On a low level, I think it should be mandatory for masters students to do a pre-thesis project, which is replicating findings in a published paper. It would do something about low hanging fruit in terms of testing reproduceability and since there is a published paper, the student has access to guidelines for setting up and reporting on a large project, which will help them learn how to do their own, original thesis.

tnhh 10y ago
I had my Masters students do this as part of my wireless networking class this year. It was very instructive for me and the students seemed to enjoy it, so I'll definitely keep it in the syllabus.

fragola 10y ago

We can all donate to organizations like the Reproducibility Project: https://osf.io/ezcuj/ https://osf.io/ezcuj/ But yeah, larger entities (universities, businesses) should also be factoring the cost of reproduction when they commission research.