A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

Re:A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to... by j7ake on Saturday May 22, 2021 @08:20AM (#27245809)

Even if something did not work, you still need a story for it to be readable.

For example, I imagine that archeological work is extremely high impact if excavation efforts led to discovery of ancient city.

Archeology paper would probably be less interesting if the paper said “we dug this area, found nothing”.

If one were to judge those two papers, obviously the discovery paper is higher impact than the negative result.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to... by dtech on Saturday May 22, 2021 @12:21PM (#27247982)

"We chose this area because we believed it should be archeologically interesting based on XYZ. However, we searched through ABC methods and found nothing there" would be valuable for the future. Maybe XYZ isn't as good as we though, maybe ABC couldn't find it. Maybe now some other sod in the future won't try that location.

Not as valuable as a discovery, but very far off zero value. Yet the reward in academia would be near-zero.

[ Parent | on HN ]