Comment by whizzter
10 hours ago
Researcher/academics pay/promotoins should be contingent on reviewing,challenging and reproducing papers rather than publishing quantity, because publishing cartels and AI has already degraded most research fields.
10 hours ago
Researcher/academics pay/promotoins should be contingent on reviewing,challenging and reproducing papers rather than publishing quantity, because publishing cartels and AI has already degraded most research fields.
Should be, but you've got to tell the funders that.
I think I was more referring to academia than commercial research even if there is a large intersection.
Academia is almost entirely steered by government policy, at least in the Anglosphere. There is a bureaucratic not-very-scientific evaluation process for research proposals. And things like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Excellence_Framework , which has been criticized for practically requiring people to game the "impact" metric in order to keep their jobs.
Reproducibility in many scientific as areas has been made almost impossible. We have got to the stage where IP matters more than scientific rigour so methodology is purposely left out.
so... empiricism is over?
I wouldn't say so, more that lawyers and capitalistic interests goes before scientific advancements, that doesn't preclude independant (or guided) re-discovery and eventual replication of findings.
No. You can't spend all your money on rehashing past results. Some, OK, all, not. In many fields, the money is needed for discovery.
I disagree - there's already a reproducibility crises in the literature of many fields. And medical adjacent-field like nutrition science are among the worst. I think the trends in our culture of people going against medical professionals and "doing their own research" (poorly, and from poor sources) is a net harm on society, and things like the reproducibility crisis and genuinely misleading studies described in the article only serve to harm and dilute the legitimate work done in the field and feed into that cycle. If even "research" by qualified professionals is actually allowed to be garbage by the responsible institutions, we truly are doomed.. It does no good to do discovery if you can't refine or even validate those discoveries.
Discovery is quite worthless if the discovery can't be trusted enough to continue building upon.
I'm not entirely disagreeing, right now however there is so much fraud that when it intersects with things of interest causes millions(billions?) to be spent on chasing the wrong leads (see findings on that 2006 Amyloid Plaque paper regarding Alzheimers research).
I'm mostly saying that being reproducible should become a higher badge of quality, right now reviewers in cartels can boost a researchers credibility by accepting each others articles to papers to let them become "influential" and money is then redirected even more to bullshit research (ie pure waste).
If up to 50% of research grants is spent on bullshit research based on fraud, spending 10% by earmarking it for reproduction to weed out irreproducible fraud is money well spent.
[dead]