Hacker News Reader

The issue is, who is going to prefer that paper over the existing ones?

You’ll have higher costs, and will you have higher returns?

The people providing science funding ought to be interested in their money being spent on science. If the methods of a study are not described in sufficient detail as to enable replication, the study is simply not science. Of course, doing science requires more diligence than doing pseudoscience. That's kind of the point.

And I think that is really the crux. I don’t see it getting better for awhile either.

We need to get a lot more cynicism in society to counteract the fraud.

How many of the people providing the funding are interested in science, and how many simply want an outcome which furthers their ends?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com