6 ms·

No paper should ever be referenced until it has been replicated by an independent group. The replication crisis in science is real, and it won't take long for n

• dartharva 15d ago
  >The replication crisis in science is real In psychology, you mean. Many contest if it even qualifies as a science anymore after the complete annihilation of trust it has undergone.
• Polizeiposaune 16d ago
  That rule would make it difficult to report on a failure to replicate a published paper.
  • freediddy 16d ago
    Every paper needs to include an independent replication of the study.
    • monocasa 16d ago
      If only we had that level of science funding.
    • sethammons 16d ago
      So build a second particle collider to validate what comes out of CERN?
  • hirvi74 16d ago
    Does some sort of batched style of research already exist? By batched, I mean a study where n number of teams all agree on a single methodology, and then conduct the same experiment simultaneously. Each team could then publish their results independently and the teams could publish one aggregate. I know meta studies attempt to do this in a way, but they can sometimes have their own problems too. I cannot recall coming across this style of research in much of what I have read as a hobby, but maybe it is more common in some domains than others? I am not smart, and there is nothing new under the Sun, so surely something like this exists, no?
    • Quekid5 16d ago
      Not quite what you're asking, but pre-registration does alleviate e.g. p-hacking and such without the need for multiple teams. It doesn't do much for outright fraud, but still...
      • mike_hearn 16d ago
        Only if the study matches its pre-registration and someone is checking that. Which it turns out, they often don't. https://www.compare-trials.org/ https://www.compare-trials.org/
        • Quekid5 14d ago
          That's a fair point. Ultimately, incentives are all screwy at the moment. Gotta tie some actual prestige/shame to not following up.
    • yayamo 16d ago
      It doesn’t seem very popular but that exact thing does seem to exist, here called a ‘Registered Replication Report’: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/replication#ONPR https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/replicatio... There are some completed which is cool. I agree that this seems like a great initiative.
  • toast0 16d ago
    If the failure is replicated by multiple groups, that would be reportable. Otoh, not sure that anyone wants to read a report that some finding that nobody reported on couldn't be replicated.
• alansaber 16d ago
  In the physical sciences, any sufficiently important paper is independently verified. Sounds like cost/effort of these multi year studies is not faesible to replicate, but then again, I know nothing about social science so w/e
• lelanthran 16d ago
  > The replication crisis in science is real, and it won't take long for no one to believe anything anymore. If you think replication in the sciences is in crises, wait till you see the field of psychology.
• prolly97 16d ago
  Not all science has this issue. But to reference Thiel, a lot of the sciences with "science" in the name, seem to.