←back to thread

247 points rntn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Darkstryder ◴[] No.43797627[source]
A dream of mine was that in order to get a PhD, you would not have to publish original research, but instead you would have to _reproduce existing research_. This would bring the PhD student to the state of the art in a different way, and it would create a natural replication process for current research. Your thesis would be about your replication efforts, what was reproducible and what was not, etc.

And then, once you got your PhD, only then you would be expected to publish new, original research.

replies(2): >>43797949 #>>43798677 #
1. hyeonwho4 ◴[] No.43797949[source]
That used to be the function of undergraduate and Masters theses at the Ivy League universities. "For the undergraduate thesis, fix someone else's mistake. For the Master's thesis, find someone else's mistake. For the PhD thesis, make your own mistake."