3 ms·
tl;dr: > Is there a better way to judge if a study is solid? > Unfortunately, there is no single alternative that everyone agrees would be better for all expe
by mrkeen 7y ago
tl;dr:
> Is there a better way to judge if a study is solid?
> Unfortunately, there is no single alternative that everyone agrees would be better for all experiments.
- viraptor 7y agoThat may not be a bad thing. Having different solutions for different categories of experiments, or even just alternatives to select from could be useful.
- ekianjo 7y agoHow about replication?
- hartator 7y agoReplication until statistically significance is found?
- ekianjo 7y agoIn a way yes, because replication lowers the risk that the findings in a single experiment are due to random luck. Anyway there's no way around avoiding replication when you want to prove something.
- buboard 7y agoEhe. Yeah if one insists enough this can happen. It's not a panacea, and really switching to any one measure will cause it to be hacked in the end. The solution is probably multiple objectives, eventually including the reputation of the researchers as well nobody has solved the trust issue
- bonoboTP 7y agoHow about understanding and valuing a publication as a letter to the research community about something the authors think is interesting and needs further consideration. The start of a scientific debate. A "hey what do you other research groups around the world think about this?" If nobody thinks anything and it doesn't gain traction or followup debate/research/consideration, then it failed its mission. Not as "This research has now found X and is in a reputable journal, so this is the new state of science from now on". The problem is, academics are pushed to writing more and more papers. There's no time to discuss back and forth too much about an already published paper, there are new papers to write! The goal of the project was to publish a paper, published=won, end of story, next project on.