(www.nature.com)

246 points rntn | 1 comments | 25 Apr 25 16:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.293s | source

Show context

N_A_T_E ◴[25 Apr 25 16:58 UTC] 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 #

1. pks016 ◴[25 Apr 25 19:19 UTC] No.43797605[source]▶

>>43795965 #

Yes. Accepting the uncertainty and publishing more than few.

Often famous/more cited studies are not replicable. But if you want to work on similar research problem and publish null/non exciting results, you're up for a fight. Journals want new, fun, exciting results but unfortunately the world doesn't work that way

↑

Reproducibility project fails to validate dozens of biomedical studies