3 ms·
Not publishing positive replications is just as bad a problem as not publishing negative original results. We have things like BigTable and Hadoop now; if 100 l
by khafra 15y ago
Not publishing positive replications is just as bad a problem as not publishing negative original results. We have things like BigTable and Hadoop now; if 100 laboratories repeat an experiment and publish their results, that just means we can raise our confidence in the result by the sum of their likelihood ratios.
Getting more data improves the accuracy your results even better than using more sophisticated algorithms: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/theorizing-from-data-by-peter-norvig-video-lecture/ http://www.catonmat.net/blog/theorizing-from-data-by-peter-n...
- kd0amg 15y agoI remember seeing an article suggesting that the incentives related to publication (specifically in medicine) set us up for conditions where a majority of published results are wrong, and we have no way of knowing it: Effectively requiring a positive result for publication means two phenomena can be the subject of multiple studies, with the one fluke that finds correlation being the one that gets published. At that point, we only get corrected if someone actually attempts to replicate the result, but replication effort may well be seen as a waste of resources.