Re:Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles wi...
by gus_massa on Sunday August 22, 2021 @07:56AM
(#28264731)
> The results are so intriguing and promising as to send multiple grad students across multiple groups barreling into replicating and expanding the results.
One important task of the advisor is to filter bad projects. Does the paper pass the smell test? Are the authors reliable or they had published "dubious" results before?
[I was recently discussing a paper in a virtual meeting. My conclusion is that Zoom does not have enough negative reactions.]
Also, before assigning an experiment to a graduate student, try to have something like a plan:
1) This will surely work and is interesting enough for the dissertation and to be publish.
2) This part is dubious, because it's related to a too resent research paper or there may be some hidden technical problems that are difficult to see.
2') An underspecified alternative to 2, just in case.
3) Extra task for bonus points and perhaps a Nobel price.
One important task of the advisor is to filter bad projects. Does the paper pass the smell test? Are the authors reliable or they had published "dubious" results before?
[I was recently discussing a paper in a virtual meeting. My conclusion is that Zoom does not have enough negative reactions.]
Also, before assigning an experiment to a graduate student, try to have something like a plan:
1) This will surely work and is interesting enough for the dissertation and to be publish.
2) This part is dubious, because it's related to a too resent research paper or there may be some hidden technical problems that are difficult to see.
2') An underspecified alternative to 2, just in case.
3) Extra task for bonus points and perhaps a Nobel price.