4 ms·
If you fail to reproduce some important research then I think that would absolutely get published. (see the recent superconductor drama) So if you feel some im
by geokon 3y ago
If you fail to reproduce some important research then I think that would absolutely get published. (see the recent superconductor drama)
So if you feel some impactful work is suspicious .. I think disproving it would absolutely be incentivised
If you show its actually correct.. Well then usually it's not that hard to push the envelope a bit further and say something new. That happens all the time
- ttymck 3y agoIt seems to me, instead of funding a new college or traditional research institute, some benefactor ought to fund a "research reproduction institute", dedicated to identifying and reproducing suspicious publications.
- sharma-arjun 3y agoYes, but in the vast majority of cases, it's hard to tell just by reading a paper if there's been dishonesty somewhere in the pipeline. Also, the LK-99 example is an exception, not the norm–the chances of receiving significant attention for a replication study are near zero in almost all other cases.
- geokon 3y agoI just don't think it's really relevant. If the research is impactful, then it'll be replicated (at least in part) when the next person tries to build on the results. If it doesn't replicate then they'll probably end up discovering something new/different - and that'll lead to it's own paper. Even in the ideal world, you effectively almost never end up with a replication paper. Either it replicates and you add on your own novel research. Or it doesn't replicate and you discover something new You can in theory end up with a super dull null result that disproves someone else's claim. But even then, when you set out on the project you're aim is to add something new on top of what's been already done. This happens all the time