= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelBishop comments on The Journal of (Failed) Replication Studies - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (14)
I think the bigger problem is not that people are unable to publish failed replications, but that people don't even try to replicate because there is little prestige or funding for it. I think we need greater rewards for successful and unsuccessful replications, and in the latter case, greater negative consequences for the people who did the original work.
Having a journal for replications (why exclude successful replications?) might help, but in my opinion something more dramatic will be needed.
If you want food for thought, see Robin's paper
This just came up on HN: How To Publish a Scientific Comment in 123 Easy Steps (pdf)
Ideally, an author can be notified of their mistake and publish a retraction (it should be their responsbility), but it seems that some authors would rather defend work they know is flawed, or do nothing and hope their mistake goes unnoticed.
Thank you for the link. I forget when I would have laughed this much the last time.