2 ms·

One solution would be bonding. If you publish a scientific result, put up some money with a bonding firm, perhaps for a specified period of time. If someone s

One solution would be bonding. If you publish a scientific result, put up some money with a bonding firm, perhaps for a specified period of time. If someone successfully identifies fraud, they get the money. The more money you put up, the more confident you are. This also provides an incentive for fraud finders.

fao_ 2y ago
Over time you'd see a socially dictated (or even regulation dictated) amount of money go up for bonding if this became regular practice. I don't think adding more of a worry around "can we afford this" would create a positive impact in a world where a) scientists and academics routinely spend more time filling out requests for money (grants/funding/etc.) and justifying their use of said money than they spend actually doing research, and b) there is already a paucity of replication.
KK7NIL 2y ago
Yes, we really need to make scientific publishing even more expensive and bureaucratic./s I appreciate your creativity but the real solution is to fund replication studies and improve statistics education in the sciences.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  We actually need less scientific publication. Bonding would encourage a smaller number of higher quality publications.
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    I agree with your goal of getting more high quality publications but it's not at all clear to me that bonding would effectively lead to that. I think it's more likely that it would reward incremental studies that don't question the "scientific consensus" and so don't risk getting sued. Not to mention that it would be a major publishing expense, which are already infamously high and just ends up being financed by grant giving organizations which was instead meant to go towards research.
pvaldes 2y ago
And a disincentive to do science for the majority of the researchers that didn't born rich. And less money available for doing science.

fao_ 2y ago

Over time you'd see a socially dictated (or even regulation dictated) amount of money go up for bonding if this became regular practice. I don't think adding more of a worry around "can we afford this" would create a positive impact in a world where a) scientists and academics routinely spend more time filling out requests for money (grants/funding/etc.) and justifying their use of said money than they spend actually doing research, and b) there is already a paucity of replication.

KK7NIL 2y ago

Yes, we really need to make scientific publishing even more expensive and bureaucratic./s I appreciate your creativity but the real solution is to fund replication studies and improve statistics education in the sciences.

pfdietz 2y ago
We actually need less scientific publication. Bonding would encourage a smaller number of higher quality publications.
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  I agree with your goal of getting more high quality publications but it's not at all clear to me that bonding would effectively lead to that. I think it's more likely that it would reward incremental studies that don't question the "scientific consensus" and so don't risk getting sued. Not to mention that it would be a major publishing expense, which are already infamously high and just ends up being financed by grant giving organizations which was instead meant to go towards research.

pvaldes 2y ago

And a disincentive to do science for the majority of the researchers that didn't born rich. And less money available for doing science.