5 ms·
I think you too his question too literally: I think he meant "what does it even mean pragmatically and why do you expect funding to go to less novel but more ea
by esrauch 8y ago
I think you too his question too literally: I think he meant "what does it even mean pragmatically and why do you expect funding to go to less novel but more easily reproducible results instead of more novel and harder to reproduce papers?"
- thecatspaw 8y agofunding should go to more reproducible studies because those are the ones that are usefull. What use is a study saying that X will cure cancer Y if noone can reproduce that and verify?
- drb91 8y agoWell, reproduced research is inherently more valuable than novel but unsupported research. Otherwise why fund research at all? Just hire alchemists or poets, at least you’ll be entertained.
- esrauch 8y agoThe current state of research seems to reflect that there is a balance: almost none of the most cited papers go really far out of theirs way to be trivially reproducible, even in computing where doing so is unusually much easier. If a paper is very novel and impactful but difficult to reproduce, it doesn't seem to matter much for citation counts as long as people just believe it to be true. And yet there's no revolution among funding sources to send money away from those and instead towards researchers who spend more time on it.