3 ms·
I don't think this is a good idea because it would increase the politicking in scientific publication. Specifically, no one is going to want to do the reproduc
by bloaf 10y ago
I don't think this is a good idea because it would increase the politicking in scientific publication. Specifically, no one is going to want to do the reproduction work, so reproduction work will be seen as a favor from one scientist to another. Moreover, in specialized fields, scientists just as frequently see each other as competitors as collaborators. I strongly suspect there would be a lot of gamesmanship where scientists refuse to (or drag their feet) do reproduction work on new studies that threaten to disrupt the status quo that has made them successful.
- Fomite 10y agoPretty much this. I cannot help but see a replication requirement like this turning things even more political. Young New Investigator's Lab, who has very little to trade, is going to struggle, while someone who can conjure a postdoc out of thin air for someone's student will probably be able to find someone.
- disgruntledphd2 10y agoI would absolutely kill to get a job doing replication. What I always hated about science was the inability for things not to work out. Even if you find something directly opposed to your hypothesis, you are somehow supposed to pretend that it worked out "just as planned". It's toxic, boring and leads to bad science. And so, for me, I would absolutely adore to be in a place where I got to run well-powered studies and aim to just figure out the right answer rather than build my career on a bunch of unrepeatable statistical flukes. That being said, my PhD is in Psychology, so they probably won't be hiring me to run animal-model studies. I really like this idea, as long as Nature put their space where their mouth is (which they won't, as they have at least one of these articles per year and it doesn't appear to have made any impact).