←back to thread

246 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 #
_aavaa_ ◴[] No.43796725[source]
Pre-registration is a pretty big one: essential you outline your research plan (what you’re looking for, how you will analyze the data, what bars you are setting for significance, etc.) before you do any research. You plan is reviewed and accepted (or denied), often by both funding agency and journal you want to submit to, before they know the results.

Then you perform the experiment exactly* how you said you would based on the pre-registration, and you get to publish your results whether they are positive or negative.

* Changes are allowed, but must be explicitly called out and a valid reason given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)

replies(3): >>43798108 #>>43798882 #>>43803663 #
neilv ◴[] No.43798108[source]
From the perspective of a dishonest researcher, what are the compliance barriers to secretly doing the research work, and only after that doing the pre-registration?
replies(2): >>43798156 #>>43799624 #
akshitgaur2005 ◴[] No.43798156[source]
You would need the funding anyway before you could start the research
replies(1): >>43798223 #
1. smokel ◴[] No.43798223[source]
One could implement some pipelining to avoid that problem.