3 ms·
This is the key part, even legitimate findings tend to be exaggerated. A great step forward would be to distribute grants to reproduce new key findings. For ex
by nextos 2y ago
This is the key part, even legitimate findings tend to be exaggerated. A great step forward would be to distribute grants to reproduce new key findings.
For example, the NIH could identify the top findings from 2024 that need to be reproduced, and seek expressions of interest to reproduce these and/or other important findings identified by applicants. Perhaps, also reach an agreement with top journals to publish replications as a new article type, and link them to the original one, just like they do with comments/news & views.
It would instantly make those publishing super edgy findings much more careful, just in case, and things would become more efficient.
- BenFranklin100 2y agoI love the idea of putting each year’s top papers under the microscope. Present day hucksters publishing in Nature will think thrice about making unsupported claims. Further, the automatic reproduction of the research will serve as cement in the fundamental building block nature of science.
- nextos 2y agoYes, exactly. It'd act as deterrent for anyone considering to exaggerate or misrepresent findings. Also, it'd lead to a quicker dissemination of true findings. Currently, academic publications are in a bit of market for lemons situation [1], where the seller (authors) have much more information than the buyers (readers, funders). Time to change that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons