3 ms·
> Papers that can't be reproduced sound like they're not very useful, either. They’re not useful at all. Reproduction of results isn’t sexy, nobody does it. Al
by dgfitz 2y ago
> Papers that can't be reproduced sound like they're not very useful, either.
They’re not useful at all. Reproduction of results isn’t sexy, nobody does it. Almost feels like science is built on a web on funding trying to buy the desired results.
- qpiox 2y agoReproduction is rarely done because it is not "new science". Everyone is funding only "new science".
- jfengel 2y agoReproduction is boring, but it would often happen incidentally to building off someone else's results. You tell me that this reaction creates X, and I need X to make Y. If I can't make my Y, sooner or later it's going to occur to me that X is the cause. Like I said, I know it's never that easy. Bench work is hard and there are a million reasons why your idea failed, and you may not take the time to figure out why. You won't report such failures. And complicated results, like in sociology, are rarely attributable to anything.
- mike_hearn 2y agoThat's true for some kinds of research but a lot of academic output isn't as firm as "X creates Y". Replicability is overrated anyway. Loads of bad papers will replicate just fine if you try. They're still making false claims. https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science-0e195234a280 https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...
- air7 2y agoI've had this idea that reproduction studies in one's C.V should become a sort of virtue signal, akin to philanthropy among the rich. This way, some percentage of one's work would need to be reproduction work or otherwise they would be looked down upon, and this would create the right incentive to do go.