Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
ramraj07 | on: Entities enabling scientific fraud at scale (2025)
Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies? As a reader even from within the field, im not interested in browsing through negative studies. It'll be great if I can look them up when needed but im not looking forward to email ToC alerts filled with them.

Also who's funding you for replication work? Do you know the pressure you have in tenure track to have a consistent thesis on what you work on?

Literally every single know that designs academia is tuned to not incentivize what you complain about. Its not just journals being picky.

Also the people committing fraud aren't ones who will say "gosh I will replicate things now!" Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.

benterix | parent | next
> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

Of course I do! Not all of course, and taking (subjectively measured) impact into account. "We tried to replicate the study published in the same journal 3 years ago using a larger sample size and failed to achieve similar results..." OR "after successfully replicating the study we can confirm the therapeutic mechanism proposed by X actually works" - these are extremely important results that are takin into account in meta studies and e.g. form the base of policies worldwide.

loading story #47337372
Bratmon | parent | next
> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

More than anything. That might legitimately be enough to save science on its own.

loading story #47338497
xandrius | parent | next
I know you got a ton of responses already but not caring about replicability just invalidates science as a method. If we care only about first to publish we end up in the current situation where we don't even know that we know is actually even remotely correct.

All because journals prefer novelty over confirmation. It's like a castle of cards, looks cool but not stable or long-term at all.

zhdc1 | parent | next
> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies? As a reader even from within the field, im not interested in browsing through negative studies.

Actually, yes, I do. The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.

loading story #47337761
chocochunks | parent | next
Even if that negative study could save you one, two, three+ years of work for the same outcome (which you then also can't really do anything with)? Shouldn't there BE funding for replication studies? Shouldn't that count towards tenure? Part of the problem is that publications play such a heavy role in getting tenure in the first place.

I'm sure you can more narrowly tune your email alerts FFS.

carlosjobim | parent | next
If you're a reader within the field, then you are the one person in the world who should be most interested in negative replication studies.
notRobot | parent | next
"Original research" isn't worth much unless replicated, which is the entire problem being discussed in this thread. Replicating studies are great though because they tell you if the original research actually stands and is valid.

> Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.

Only if the original work was BS. And what, just because it's harder, we shouldn't do it?

loading story #47337391
peyton | parent | next
> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

Hell yeah. We’re all trying to get that Nature paper. Imagine if you could accomplish that by setting the record straight.

fc417fc802 | root | parent
If you're thoroughly debunking a previous Nature paper they just might publish that. But the expectation is that you'll succeed. Publishing that sort of mundane article would reduce the prestige of getting something into the journal. Publishing in a high impact journal is only seen as an achievement in the first place because of what it implies about the content of your paper.
loading story #47340632
renewiltord | parent | next
Realistically, everyone will say “yes” to the “do you want” question because if you’re not a reader or a subscriber you benefit from the readers reading replication studies.

I believe people will enthusiastically say yes but that they do not routinely read that journal.

loading story #47338428
loading story #47339737
lovich | parent | next
> Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.

I don’t regularly read scientific studies but I’ve read a few of them.

How is it possible that a serious study is harder to replicate than it is to do originally. Are papers no longer including their process? Are we at the point where they are just saying “trust me bro” for how they achieved their results?

> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

Not issues of Nature but I’ve long thought that universities or the government should fund a department of “I don’t believe you” entirely focused on reproducing scientific results and seeing if they are real

loading story #47339543
paganel | parent
>Also who's funding you for replication work? Do you know the pressure you have in tenure track to have a consistent thesis on what you work on?

This is partly why much of today's science is bs, pure and simple.