←back to thread

247 points rntn | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.566s | source
Show context
N_A_T_E ◴[] No.43795965[source]
Is there any path forward to fixing the current reproducibility crisis in science? Individuals can do better, but that won't solve a problem at this scale. Could we make systemic changes to how papers are validated and approved for publication in major journals?
replies(12): >>43796160 #>>43796211 #>>43796313 #>>43796358 #>>43796415 #>>43796725 #>>43796906 #>>43796908 #>>43796955 #>>43797084 #>>43797605 #>>43797627 #
somethingsome ◴[] No.43796358[source]
IMO, stopping the race toward better h index.

There is an huge amount of pressure to publish publish publish.

So, many researchers prefeer to write very simple things that are probably true or applicative work, which is kind of useful, or publish false/fake results.

replies(2): >>43796480 #>>43796930 #
1. guerby ◴[] No.43796480[source]
May be try to define a "reproducible" h-index, ie your publication doesn't count or count less until a different team has reproduced your results, the team doing the reproducing work gets some points to.

(And may be add more points if in order to reproduce you didn't have to ask plenty of questions to the original team, ie the original paper didn't omit essential information)

replies(1): >>43796950 #
2. somethingsome ◴[] No.43796950[source]
The thing is, that would encourage two teams to cheat together, it would displace the problem, I'm not sure it will limit the effect that much (?)