Comment by bayindirh
17 hours ago
Hey, no problem. Yes, I'm familiar with it, and I work in/with projects which aims to create reproducible research (Galaxy, Zenodo, etc.). If you tell me that "I can make this unreproducible paper reproducible, but with a different process (or the same one), and share all the pipeline from dust to result", I'll tell you to go for it, and fund you.
At the end, if something is not reproducible, and you're testing reproducibility of that thing, it's illuminating a dark area of that hypothesis.
Measuring the quality of the research and its impact is not something I'm very familiar with to be honest, and I'm not from US, so I can't tell how universities push their people, however publish or perish is a real problem everywhere in the world.
We used to see citation numbers important, then cite-rings cropped up. We valued paper counts, then professors started to lend their names to papers in their areas for "free" advisory. Now we have more complex algorithms/methods, and now I'm more of a research institute person than an academic, and I don't know how effective these things are anymore.
But hey, I do research for fun and write papers now and then. Just to keep myself entertained to find reasons to learn something new.
Fair enough and all great points. I think we're more aligned than not on the fundamentals here. Folks seem to be reacting negatively to my even propositioning these questions without even having made a judgment on the merit of the study myself.
Yes, we agree in the fundamentals. The reality is, academia dynamics is very different w.r.t. to private sector, esp. startups. So, knowing how research works in academia is a bit of an unknown for people who're not interested in this line of work, or people who doesn't know how these things are done in general.
In short, the value proposition for a piece of research is very different depending on the lens you're looking through to that research.