←back to thread

Reproducibility project fails to validate dozens of biomedical studies

(www.nature.com)
246 points rntn | 1 comments | 25 Apr 25 16:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
noisy_boy ◴[26 Apr 25 11:54 UTC] No.43802797[source]▶
Question to those in academia: with the plethora of false/fraudulent studies, can that be considered low-hanging fruit for phd students? e.g. pick studies published by universities with high debunking percentage and prove them wrong as part of the phd thesis? Instead of trying to discover "new" stuff which could be more work?
replies(4): >>43802849 #>>43803416 #>>43803461 #>>43804095 #
1. whatever1 ◴[26 Apr 25 12:01 UTC] No.43802849[source]▶
In fact I think this should be standard of the PhD curriculum.

In the first year you are clueless anyway, what a better use of your time than replicating some established result, and then publish your findings. In the experimental world the author will often skip details that are crucial to the success, just because it has become second nature to them. A replication study will reveal these, aka you know you need really sterile room to make this work, or you need to set-up this way your linux distribution.