4 ms·

If it’s not worth reproducing it’s not worth publishing imo

• anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Until grants explicitly grant money for an independent lab to reproduce the research they are paying for (effectively almost doubling the grant amount), no one is going to spend their hard-won funds on reproducing someone else's research. At least not in a timely manner. What such a requirement would do is dramatically scale back research, and highly incentivize researchers to lie, or the "independent labs" to fudge in order to keep drawing funding from their collaborators.
  • vlovich123 3y ago
    Is it a jobs program or are we investing money to get to the truth of things?
    • anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Granting agencies, whether government or NGO, typically want certain kinds of applied science results. I think "truth" is more assumed than the explicit goal.
  • Qem 3y ago
    > Until grants explicitly grant money for an independent lab to reproduce the research they are paying for (effectively almost doubling the grant amount) I think a lot of money would be saved by avoiding researchers to waste resources in dead ends, by trying to build upon results that can't be reproduced. So not exactly double.
    • anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      I completely agree, but unfortunately it's not the same money that is in the initial grant, it's someone else's money. So by granting more money granting agencies can theoretically save some other granting agency's money, but not necessarily their own. Meanwhile that other granting agency will get a lot more bang for their buck (and quantitatively more prestigious results) than the first granting agency. Bad incentive structures.
  • notyofriend 3y ago
    I agree we need to allocate at least 1/4 maybe up to 1/3 of all grant money to reproduction of research. While that seems wasteful it’s actually a huge savings and prevents people from wasting energy on false research