3 ms·

Wow. Disappointing. This is a like a tragedy of the commons , nobody is willing to take the first step. I think severely hard remedies measures are needed, "bet

by return0 11y ago

Wow. Disappointing. This is a like a tragedy of the commons , nobody is willing to take the first step. I think severely hard remedies measures are needed, "better peer review" is not going to cut it. For example, make it a requirement that a finding is reproduced in an independent lab before publishing.

austinjp 11y ago
Unfortunately that proposal would favour the well-funded, since research is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. I like the idea of a compulsory (or at least public and open) registry of all research. All trials and other types of research would be registered before they are started. The design would then be publicly available, and progress could be tracked from proposal through to publication. This would potentially highlight several weaknesses in the peer review process, allowing them to be dealt with. Some p-hacking may be revealed, by showing where designs had altered from proposed design to published design. It would show all trials which have failed to be published, potentially highlighting publication biases and negative results.
dnautics 11y ago
such a journal exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses
- analog31 11y ago
  Interestingly, synthetic chemistry is a good example of a field that has policed itself well. I don't know if it's an official rule anywhere, but synthetic chemists follow an rule of performing a pretty good number of independent tests on any new chemical, such as IR, NMR, mass spectrometry, crystallography, and elemental analysis. Plus they need to have a plausible explanation of how the molecule was formed.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    Fairly well. There's still Corey yield. The sezen/sames crisis happened too. I had a grad school friend who sent a sample to the crystallography service and got the structure he was looking for when he submitted salt.
Estragon 11y ago
That would simply result in collusion between "independent" labs. The problem here is bad faith.

by return0 11y ago

austinjp 11y ago

Unfortunately that proposal would favour the well-funded, since research is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. I like the idea of a compulsory (or at least public and open) registry of all research. All trials and other types of research would be registered before they are started. The design would then be publicly available, and progress could be tracked from proposal through to publication. This would potentially highlight several weaknesses in the peer review process, allowing them to be dealt with. Some p-hacking may be revealed, by showing where designs had altered from proposed design to published design. It would show all trials which have failed to be published, potentially highlighting publication biases and negative results.

dnautics 11y ago

such a journal exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses

analog31 11y ago
Interestingly, synthetic chemistry is a good example of a field that has policed itself well. I don't know if it's an official rule anywhere, but synthetic chemists follow an rule of performing a pretty good number of independent tests on any new chemical, such as IR, NMR, mass spectrometry, crystallography, and elemental analysis. Plus they need to have a plausible explanation of how the molecule was formed.
- dnautics 11y ago
  Fairly well. There's still Corey yield. The sezen/sames crisis happened too. I had a grad school friend who sent a sample to the crystallography service and got the structure he was looking for when he submitted salt.

Estragon 11y ago

That would simply result in collusion between "independent" labs. The problem here is bad faith.