Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It would directly undermine the reason that people read Nature in the first place.
 help



Not really.

"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."

Knowing that something I thought was true was actually false would have saved me years in several situations.


I didn't understand us to only be talking about failed replication studies of previous Nature papers which would hopefully be few and far between and thus noteworthy indeed. Rather replication studies in general which on average are arguably less interesting to the reader than even the content of the typical archival journal.

They certainly will be few and far between when the system is structured to repress them. But there's reason to believe they wouldn't be as rare as you seem to think:

https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=retraction


Are you seriously attempting to imply that Nature retractions aren't few and far between?

What's even your point here? Hopefully we are at least in agreement that Nature is seen as prestigious and worth looking through precisely because of the sort of content that they publish. Diluting that would dilute their very nature. (Bad pun very much intended sorry I just couldn't resist.)


"Are you seriously attempting to imply that Nature retractions aren't few and far between?"

No. I'm explicitly stating that they are few and far between, but perhaps (not certainly, but conceivably) they shouldn't be.

"What's even your point here?"

My point is that focusing on positive findings and neglecting negative findings perverts the mechanism that makes science work. Science isn't about proving things correct, it's about rooting out errors.


I'm not sure I agree. The system certainly isn't optimal but results aren't just dumped into a vacuum. Something is only useful if people can build on it. Even if negative results don't get published, even if it isn't optimal, by virtue of future positive results building on past things that did reproduce you get forward progress.

Regardless, I don't think that's at odds with my original assertion that becoming a venue for publishing negative results would undermine the "point" of Nature.

The missing link isn't a venue in which to publish. It's funding to do the work in the first place. Also funding to spend the time writing it up when you find that you've inadvertently been tricked into doing the work while trying to get something that builds on it to work.


"Also funding to spend the time writing it up when you find that you've inadvertently been tricked into doing the work while trying to get something that builds on it to work."

Oh there have been times would have loved to be able to apply for one of those!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: