Proposition: If a study isn't worth replicating then it wasn't worth doing in the first place.https://twitter.com/learnfromerror/status/894661441948708864 …
-
-
Replying to @chrisdc77
This is why
@hardsci's pottery barn policy is key. When a journal publishes a paper, it is assigning value to future replication attempts >2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @hardsci
And the journal shd therefore commit to publishing those future reps, however they turn out, for no reason beyond "We published this".
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @hardsci
This holds for replications themselves. When RSOS launches pottery barn it will commit to publishing an infinite # of reps of any RSOS paper
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @hardsci
Even the papers that are themselves pottery barn reps of previous papers. The community will self select the most important ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @hardsci
That's great! A plan I have for my lab is that one of the first projects a student does should be a replication
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
I used to think this was normal until I found out other labs don't do this. In cog comp modelling, for me, it's often been the norm.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Nice to know it's becoming the norm for non comp and comp people alike.
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.