I respond to @HarryDCrane 's critique comparing author bets and market odds as signals of academic article quality. https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/10/bets-as-signals-of-article-quality.html …https://twitter.com/HarryDCrane/status/1054705980175458305 …
-
-
Replying to @robinhanson @HarryDCrane
FPP doesn't incentivize anything. I tried to address the some of the same points, (A Research Prediction Market Framework)https://www.researchers.one/article/2018-09-15 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SeriouslyDanger @robinhanson
It doesn't incentivize accurate author assessment of rep prob?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HarryDCrane @robinhanson
1/ I can't imagine where a team would post an additional 50% of research cost in escrow as collateral to fund replication research for a lengthy period of time (2 years). Followed by the assumption the replication would be carried out by a "trusted, neutral third-party."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2/ FPP doesn't incentivize anyone who wouldn't already hold themselves to high replication standards. A trusted third-party is a linchpin in practicality that without a system in place for selection undermines the whole idea.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It would help to make it clear to observers who holds themselves to high replication standards. An ability to find a trusted third party is also a good sign about an author.
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.