New answers tagged

0

Personally, I would advise against submitting these two papers simultaneously, precisely because you still seem to be (relatively) inexperienced in terms of getting papers published. You could quickly get into a number of tricky situations, for example: (1) You submit both papers at the same time for different journals, but then you receive from both ...


0

Papers and research in general are a proof-of-concept of a certain idea. The results must be reproducible, but not necessarily reproduced: only time will tell if the proof of concept really works. The peer-review should guarantee that the method is working as it claims to work, as well investigating if the claims are correct and the state-of-art is respected....


7

I'm going against the grain here and will say that any important result does get replicated, and this happens all the time. Science and engineering are fields where we are always standing on the shoulders of giants. New science always builds upon older science. If the old science doesn't work, the new science doesn't either, so all important discoveries ...


-1

The problem here, as in everything regarding the reproducibility crisis, lies in the incentives given to academics. As long as academics have (in this case, financial) incentives to focus on their career advancement, rather than on doing good and honest work, we won't get out of it.


3

Academia doesn't pay well enough for comparatively high qualified people to do the boring work of reproduction by default. If you want such people to do boring work on a regular basis, you have to pay them much more. That being said, scientists will often try to reproduce results they critically need, so you could say that, on the long run, natural ...


26

Because not all research is interesting or important enough to other people for them to spend their own time and resources on it. Because replication is frequently made difficult when original researchers won't share their methods or data with researchers who might try to disprove or discredit their work. ("We have 25 or so years invested in the ...


7

E.g., where a second experiment/data collection run would take < 20% of the cost of the original research and < 3 months to conduct. Just because it would be cheaper and quicker than the original research, does not mean that the money and time are available to some other group. Other groups have their limits on money and time that they are likely ...


31

experiments re-run by other academics for cases where it is relatively low cost and fast to do so The proportion of novel experiments which can be quickly and cheaply replicated is extremely small because the quick and cheap experiments were all done decades ago. There are some exceptions in synthetic chemistry where, once the right reaction conditions are ...


4

The difficulty with this lies in uniform application. The proposition makes a distinction between some types of research that should be verified and others that shouldn't (on time/cost basis for example). This incentivises some research at the cost of others; it would be more fruitful/lucrative to do the kind of experiment that can't be easily repeated, ...


57

Researchers make or break their reputation on ground-breaking, innovative, and high-impact work. Reproducing the results of another group provides essentially no benefit to any individual group (even if a culture of replication could arguably benefit the field). More often than not, in my experience (in physics), reproduction of results is done as a first ...


Top 50 recent answers are included