> Papers that can't be reproduced sound like they're not very useful, either.
They’re not useful at all. Reproduction of results isn’t sexy, nobody does it. Almost feels like science is built on a web on funding trying to buy the desired results.
They’re not useful at all. Reproduction of results isn’t sexy, nobody does it. Almost feels like science is built on a web on funding trying to buy the desired results.
You tell me that this reaction creates X, and I need X to make Y. If I can't make my Y, sooner or later it's going to occur to me that X is the cause.
Like I said, I know it's never that easy. Bench work is hard and there are a million reasons why your idea failed, and you may not take the time to figure out why. You won't report such failures. And complicated results, like in sociology, are rarely attributable to anything.
Replicability is overrated anyway. Loads of bad papers will replicate just fine if you try. They're still making false claims.
https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...