Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science. Just published in RSOS (). Co-authored with and .
On that second option, he references et al’s piece: #metascience2019
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science #RSOS #openscience
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science
"We should strive to reward good science performed with integrity, thoroughness, and a commitment to truth over what is too often seen as ‘good’ science, characterized by flawed metrics such as publication quantity, #impactfactor and press coverage."
Here’s a modeling paper, but we also reviewed a lot of the lot on peer review. I agree, it’s extremely problematic.
Funding lotteries -- random allocation to sound methods -- combined with #openscience practices that increase publication of negative results & improve quality of #peerreview would reduce false scientific discoveries, finds mathematical modelling study
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science
"Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science" - #OpenScience