Lots of bad science still gets published. Here’s how we can change that.
A new project aims to tackle the “replication crisis” by shifting incentives among scientists.
"Another extremely important thing is, our replications have to be extremely accurate, so we always run them by the original research team. We really want to make sure it’s a fair replication of what they did."
By Sigal Samuel
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23489211/replication-crisis-project-meta-science-psychology
@corlin it would be easier to deal with this issue by simply allowing scientists to publish negative results.
I do not believe this insensitive will work. And more - it's impossible to implement to other branches of science.
Hmmmm.
Good points.
I have no idea how to change the academic incentives, that lead to this problem. It is a complex set of changes. Each is daunting by itself, combined, seem overwhelming.
@corlin it is a very complicated to fix. starting from education (for example, there is definitely lack of statistical training for grad students) and grant applications (most are focused on fast results instead of fundamental studies), finishing acceptance of papers.
systemic changes are needed. some will be successful, others not, but we do need to start somewhere. it's indeed very important topic