4 ms·
For the price of 10% of subsidy, you could sponsor reproducing ~10% of discoveries (proportional to the subsidy they took). Just some simple public provably ran
by DoctorOetker 8y ago
For the price of 10% of subsidy, you could sponsor reproducing ~10% of discoveries (proportional to the subsidy they took). Just some simple public provably random commitment protocol.
While you are doing the experiment, everyone knows theres a 10% probability of eventually being selected, so healthy pressure to make sure everything is properly documented, and everyone looks out to detect fraud by collaborators.
I don't see the problem, unless its the 10% price hike... if 10% is too much, just do 90% of the usual number of projects. I'd prefer 10% less projects if it ensures much higher reproducibility rates...
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 8y agoI don’t understand your math. Typically, for one paper, if you’re trying to reproduce the experiment (rather than just the analysis) the cost is closer to 110% because, for many researchers, their papers build off of their previous papers so they already have expertise with a particular assay, protocol, technology, etc.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoThe math stays the same, even if the numbers change: with your number of 110% of the original project price for reproduction by others we get the following price hike 110% * 1/10 = 11% big deal, 11% more expensive science, but 1 out of 10 results get reproduced, stoichiocratically, so you don't know if it will be reproduced until after publication... Also: your comment about reproducibility details being scattered over the previous work of the original authors... as I said, in a world where we use my system, you are incentivized to put all details for reproduction within the paper, since you wouldn't want to risk possible reproduction by others to fail simply because they didn't read your previous papers...