3 ms·
I'm not so sure this is the right way to go about it. They give the example of cell densities, but there are also tons of things that just are never reported in
by jonlucc 8y ago
I'm not so sure this is the right way to go about it. They give the example of cell densities, but there are also tons of things that just are never reported in in vivo papers, including the light cycle in animal rooms (mice and rats are nocturnal, so some labs make their rooms dark during the day), the preparation of treatment compounds, information about animal ages, handling procedures, etc. In addition, many papers have length limits, so you can only include so much.
- Alex3917 8y agoSure, all of which make the research non replicable. That stuff is all important, you can't just discount it because it's the norm not to include it.
- TallGuyShort 8y agoIt's important that it become the norm to include it, though. So rather than just moving on, they're trying to gather that information so that if they CAN reproduce it, they now know how to make sure the next experiment can be more reproducible.
- flukus 8y agoThey should be replicable despite a lot of that, if they aren't then then the original study is garbage.
- Alex3917 8y agoGetting the same result doesn’t mean a study is replicable or a result is reproduceable. If you don’t use the same methodology it’s meaningless.
- irq11 8y agoNo. Nobody ever reproduces papers exactly, because you can’t. There are too many variables, and even though you try to control as many as possible, you can still be blindsided by the random variate that you didn’t anticipate. Scientific results that are robust to random variation are the important ones. The ones that can only be reproduced exactly as specified are most likely to be “meaningless”.