Cool idea. The peers in peer-reviewed papers should sign off on the papers in this way.https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/932818755154886656 …
-
I'm not so sure about that. As I understand it, this change encourages authors to do their own replication or at least rigorously confirm their ideas. It disincentivizes the publication of crap, while still letting through powerful new results.
The incentive to do replication still exists, particularly with the author. I also imagine that a replication study that proved many "no will not replicate" answers from peers would be landmark.
-
-
Others don't really have incentives to replicate, with or without this proposal. And we need others to verify / disconfirm. So the proposal is not bad but I think doesn't fix the deepest problem.
-
If I spend resources to replicate I have to put my study on hold + disconfirming someone won't make me popular with peers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.