4 ms·
The point of the Nautilus article was repeatability is a must before a scientific result is accepted. However pressure to publish new results often lead to scie
by maverick_iceman 10y ago
The point of the Nautilus article was repeatability is a must before a scientific result is accepted. However pressure to publish new results often lead to scientists losing motivation in doing replicating studies. It's a bug in the scientific ecosystem, particularly in the allocation of rewards. A significant number of experiments will always fail to replicate for various random reasons. That doesn't mean the concerned scientist is at fault.
- jerryhuang100 10y agoone or two publications without repeatable results might be acceptable - maybe he or she is just out of luck or some how choose the wrong hypothesis. but if there are five or six non-repeatable papers in the publication laundry list, esp some used for degrees, promotions to tenured positions, or grant applications, this makes him or her looks like fraud with a track record of publishing "personal opinions."