Re-reading a few papers and it is fucked up how in academia scientists are incentivized to not make their work reproducible. For many scientists, it is a huge risk to give enough details about your work. Someone could publish something right before you. Someone could find a flaw in your work. You could get more papers out of the same data if you keep things back. Or it might just be easier and shorter. There is little reward for being honest and thorough.
Negative results aren't published. Replication studies are seldom funded. Literature reviews are rare. The only thing that is valued is novelty.
So we get painfully incomplete papers that don't tell us enough. Sure, they made a great finding. And I can't figure out how, because they weren't ever required to tell details.
And on a side note: there is also no reason to make academic work easy to understand. A newcomer to the field must learn the hard way, and non-academics have no chance to understand science.
We have old scientists writing for old scientists and picking which new scientists to accept into their medium. And "laypeople" must accept science on faith alone, because there is no point of entry besides doing it as a full-time job.
The entire foundation of the scientific method is reproducibility.
But scientists are more afraid of their hypothesis being proved wrong than of publishing something unverified.
Or actually: a few are like this. Most are trying their hardest, but they don't have the means to do things differently. Scientists try to make good science but they can't.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!