3 ms·
A reproducibility index instead of an h-index would help I think, and having an independent body which holds research institutions accountable for a having low
by lusus_naturae 3y ago
A reproducibility index instead of an h-index would help I think, and having an independent body which holds research institutions accountable for a having low collective reproducibility index (per field). Funding should be tied to the reproducibility index.
Edit to add: some research is so niche that only one or two groups may be able to work on it due to equipment, resources or training/talent—in this case the independent body should be allowed to audit the results of such labs. Maybe scientists may game the index by saying "my competitor's results cannot be reproduced", in which the lab who this is claimed against may file a petition to the independent body to resolve the matter.
- falsedang 3y ago[flagged]
- physPop 3y agoA big problem we have in a lot of fields is that no researcher is incentivized to even try to reproduce work. No credit is given by tenure boards or grant agencies.
- PeterisP 3y agoWe can't really decide what grant agencies should want, especially since their goals are often national or even more decentralized, and thus 'siloed' - it seems quite plausible that a grant agency (or tenure board) really has no good reason to value replicating the inventions of others but wants to put their funding solely towards "their own" new results. Tragedy of the commons is a predictable outcome no matter how smart the agents are, because they're each acting in their own best interests.