= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
tetsuo55 comments on Why no archive of refuted research? - 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 (11)
this could be a good project, any takers. We need to collect the information and put it all together on 1 site, we don't have to release our own studies.
In some fields most of the studies are refuted within 2 years of publishing, i wonder if it might be better to include any and all studies we can find and then rate them on a reliability scale like this one: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 / http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/08/12/interventive-gerontology-101-01-the-basics/ .
that scale might not work for all fields but we can probably think of a scale that does work. And then say any rating below X should be never be cited.
I do not however have a solution for how to become a respected agency.
If journals start to reject publishing researched because it relies on 'poor' citations, that should have the effect of making this proposed archive-of-study-quality respected.
So maybe a more specific question: how could we get journals to use this archive as part of their review process?
The obvious method is to start with people who are credentialed in the fields to join in. If you have relevant PhDs who are working on this people will likely pay a lot more attention. Maybe talk to people are the local university, see if you can get them interested.