4 ms·

If they are, in fact, implying that another lab should produce a matching data-set to try to replicate results, well, I'm sorry, but that won't work, at least i

If they are, in fact, implying that another lab should produce a matching data-set to try to replicate results, well, I'm sorry, but that won't work, at least in a whole lot of fields. Data collection can be very expensive, and take a lot of time. It certainly is in my field. If on, the other hand, they just want the raw data, and let others go to town on it in their own way, that's fine, probably. Results that don't depend on very particular details of the processing pipeline are probably more robust anyway.

peteradio 3y ago
What field is it too expensive or difficult to reproduce the data?
- 542458 3y ago
  As reviewers are paid nothing and get no substantial credit for their work, I’m going to say “Every field”. Why would you do a significant chunk of a paper’s work for no reward? Replication studies are typically a bad deal even when you get to pick a notable study to reproduce and you get a paper to your name out of it - replicating what will probably be an obscure paper for no credit is not something most academics (let alone commercial research labs) would entertain.
- jonnycomputer 3y ago
  Lots? Human subjects research, for one e.g. very often they involve clinical populations that are very hard to recruit. You can spend tens of thousands in advertising, and multiples more in labor, to get a hundred participants in, over the course of an entire year of effort, and that's not even counting the money spent on a clinician doing a diagnosis. And then, when you do, you may, say, pay $1000 for the MRI per subject, plus the $100 bucks you pay directly to the participant themselves.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TrackerFF 3y ago
  On the top of my head: Say you want to research biological data from the Mariana trench. Or even worse: Some passing by comet, or planet/moon/whatever in the solar system. And just to make things EVEN worse, you need to analyze the data in some destructive way. Certainly very plausible scenarios, but also some which could prohibitively expensive to do multiple times.

peteradio 3y ago

What field is it too expensive or difficult to reproduce the data?

542458 3y ago
As reviewers are paid nothing and get no substantial credit for their work, I’m going to say “Every field”. Why would you do a significant chunk of a paper’s work for no reward? Replication studies are typically a bad deal even when you get to pick a notable study to reproduce and you get a paper to your name out of it - replicating what will probably be an obscure paper for no credit is not something most academics (let alone commercial research labs) would entertain.
jonnycomputer 3y ago
Lots? Human subjects research, for one e.g. very often they involve clinical populations that are very hard to recruit. You can spend tens of thousands in advertising, and multiples more in labor, to get a hundred participants in, over the course of an entire year of effort, and that's not even counting the money spent on a clinician doing a diagnosis. And then, when you do, you may, say, pay $1000 for the MRI per subject, plus the $100 bucks you pay directly to the participant themselves.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TrackerFF 3y ago
On the top of my head: Say you want to research biological data from the Mariana trench. Or even worse: Some passing by comet, or planet/moon/whatever in the solar system. And just to make things EVEN worse, you need to analyze the data in some destructive way. Certainly very plausible scenarios, but also some which could prohibitively expensive to do multiple times.