3 ms·
Why make it a PhD requirement? You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction.
by blackbear_ 4y ago
Why make it a PhD requirement? You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction.
Much better to make reproducibility a valuable research contribution in and of its own and let "the market" take care of it. Create better incentives for all authors. For example, make it possible to submit the code for analysis alongside an article and highlight articles who do (similar to the open-access movement), create journals dedicated to reproducibility, measure successful reproduction attempts alongside citations of each article, etc.
- Supermancho 4y ago> Much better to make reproducibility a valuable research contribution in and of its own and let "the market" take care of it. "the market" is the same force that has led to the perverse incentives of constantly pushing new "discoveries" above validations. The small variations you have prescribed have been tried (to various degrees) and have not had an effect on aggregate behavior. > Why make it a PhD requirement? You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction. The why is obvious. The purpose of a PHD is for the furthering of knowledge, so it's a perpetual source of motivation. > You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction. That's how it might end up (largely based on the rigor of the PHD program), but it's better than what we have, which is no good incentive to reproduce results.