Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I agree in principle. There are a few concerns:

1. How should we receive costly research that took special equipment and lots of time to develop and cultivate? I.e., CERN?

2. A lot of research is published, ignored, and then rediscovered. In this case, we may want to accept the research until it cannot be repeated (i.e., in another journal publication).

3. Reviewers of academic publications probably are not qualified or have the time to recreate all scientific research.

4. Isn't the academic system at its core kinda... broken?

"Isn't the academic system at its core kinda... broken?"

can your elaborate on what you mean?

I gather its things like misaligned incentives. Like funding sources dictating the "desirable" result, reluctance to publish negative results, pursue of (vanity) metrics that leads to quota system by universities, etc.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

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