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

The problem with a journal of bad results is that it would only be useful if you kept meticulous notes while getting bad results. Which functionally turns them into good results which can be published normally, since you now have enough content to write something like "<Phenonmenon> not found under <conditions>" which is basically how you call out the original authors.

The reality of when you can't reproduce something is usually some combination of the authors did not report something they considered minor, but which turned out to be important, and/or that you're just bad at it, but in both cases your actual research probably wasn't trying to study that phenomenon - you wanted to use it for something else.

EDIT: I will say, what would be great would be if live-streaming your experiments became a thing (so really just recording them) at least in chemistry (where I worked). There would be immense value in being able to pull the recordings of someone getting the result they claim so you can see their whole technique, setup, lab and process - because that's where the important details creep in.




The issue is that there already is so much being published that it is nearly impossible to keep up with in many fields. Any solution that includes more publications just misses the mark and is detrimental IMO. We will only get to better science if we move to a situation were publishing less is acceptable, because the only way we can detect dishonesty is if scientists actually have enough time to follow up on weird results.




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

Search: