←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 #
poincaredisk ◴[] No.43798882[source]
Wow, I didn't think it's possible, but it sounds like a great way to make research boring :).
replies(1): >>43799643 #
_aavaa_ ◴[] No.43799643[source]
What is boring about this? You get the guarantee of publishing your work, even if you get a negative result.

I take it you don’t do research. Cause boring is nothing compared to wasting month of time and money only to get a negative result that nobody will publish.

replies(2): >>43799898 #>>43799899 #
1. ◴[] No.43799898[source]