3 ms·
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) Reproducing studies and publishing the results is a hallmark of science s
by BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent)
Reproducing studies and publishing the results is a hallmark of science so I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to.
- oldandtired 9y agoWhat he is saying is that there are no kudo's for publishing work that just confirms something. Research grants are given for new work not for doing confirming followup work. This has become a problem in recent decades and has led to certain systemic problems that have been discussed in various places in recent months. If you say something like "I am submitting this grant request to replicate the experiments of X who have published results Y so that we can confirm X's results" then your grant application will most likely be refused.
- harry8 9y agoWhy is it so hard to get published when you attempt to reproduce a study and fail to do so? Papers rejected by the journals the published the original research is apparently the norm.