4 ms·

If I had a bunch of money, I'd setup a grant specifically for funding replication studies. Real science can be replicated and the only way to replicate is to do

If I had a bunch of money, I'd setup a grant specifically for funding replication studies. Real science can be replicated and the only way to replicate is to do it.

amelius 4y ago
Also, replication studies could be a great way for young scientists to get started in their career.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  I mean, the incentives do seem to blow the other way. "We have invalidated the well-paid and instrumentally useful papers of a dozen other scientists! Please hire us!"
  - amelius 4y ago
    It may seem that way, but there will always be a PI involved, with different incentives.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    > Hey we found those issues in so and so papers, we identified mistakes of a dozen other scientists and we do our due diligence. Please hire us! I think it's a lot about the phrasing.
- zinclozenge 4y ago
  When I was doing my physics masters (at a pretty good school ie had a couple of nobel prize winners) there was at least a handful of students whose phd projects involved "testing" theories of gravitation and pushing them to their limits. Not quite the same as experimental replication, but along the same lines I'd say.
  - kansface 4y ago
    Given that they are testing theory, yes. What theory underlines psychology? How does one relate the findings?
- texaslonghorn5 4y ago
  Yes, and this is already how many PhD students spend their first year or two
akira2501 4y ago
If the incentive is to get the grant and not to actually produce replicable studies, then what impact would you expect this to have? If the inputs are mostly garbage, then all this might do is confirm what we already know. I wonder if you'd be better off having a two-phase grant mechanism. One smaller payment for the research, and a second larger payment if it is replicable. Actually incentivize the "market" to produce good work. As it is, this incentive doesn't actually exist.
yucky 4y ago
There needs to be a prestigious award with a large monetary reward for scientists who definitively disprove the most previously published studies each year. Then track scientists how have their names attached to the most garbage studies and publicly drag them. Best way to clean house on an untrustworthy institution that's been politicized. Do science for the science, not to fit some shit narrative.

If I had a bunch of money, I'd setup a grant specifically for funding replication studies. Real science can be replicated and the only way to replicate is to do it.

amelius 4y ago

Also, replication studies could be a great way for young scientists to get started in their career.

FeepingCreature 4y ago
I mean, the incentives do seem to blow the other way. "We have invalidated the well-paid and instrumentally useful papers of a dozen other scientists! Please hire us!"
- amelius 4y ago
  It may seem that way, but there will always be a PI involved, with different incentives.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > Hey we found those issues in so and so papers, we identified mistakes of a dozen other scientists and we do our due diligence. Please hire us! I think it's a lot about the phrasing.
zinclozenge 4y ago
When I was doing my physics masters (at a pretty good school ie had a couple of nobel prize winners) there was at least a handful of students whose phd projects involved "testing" theories of gravitation and pushing them to their limits. Not quite the same as experimental replication, but along the same lines I'd say.
- kansface 4y ago
  Given that they are testing theory, yes. What theory underlines psychology? How does one relate the findings?
texaslonghorn5 4y ago
Yes, and this is already how many PhD students spend their first year or two

akira2501 4y ago

If the incentive is to get the grant and not to actually produce replicable studies, then what impact would you expect this to have? If the inputs are mostly garbage, then all this might do is confirm what we already know. I wonder if you'd be better off having a two-phase grant mechanism. One smaller payment for the research, and a second larger payment if it is replicable. Actually incentivize the "market" to produce good work. As it is, this incentive doesn't actually exist.

yucky 4y ago

There needs to be a prestigious award with a large monetary reward for scientists who definitively disprove the most previously published studies each year. Then track scientists how have their names attached to the most garbage studies and publicly drag them. Best way to clean house on an untrustworthy institution that's been politicized. Do science for the science, not to fit some shit narrative.