[auggierose]

> that is at least on face easily remediable

But it's not easily remediable. And that is the point.

Just imagine how that would work in practice. Somebody does an original experiment that gives exciting results. Let's say they get a 1000 Science Points for that. Now somebody replicates that experiment. How many points should they get? Should you get as many points for replicating a 1000 points experiment as replicating a 500 points experiment? Why would you do original experiments at all anymore? Isn't it easier just to replicate original experiments where all of the hard work has already been done?

Awarding points for replication is a nonsense idea.

[emerongi]

Well, you wouldn't get 1000 science points for it before it's replicated by others. Once it's replicated enough times by credible people, the points are awarded, and the process is now considered "done".

If someone replicates it after this process and finds different results, it's "new research" again and needs to be replicated again.

[carlmr]

I agree, it's kind of like people handing in their "finished" feature with "just the tests" missing. It's not finished. It maybe doesn't even work. Simple as that.

I think we shouldn't even accept papers that haven't been replicated twice by independent teams.

[auggierose]

Doesn't really matter WHEN you get the points for your original experiment. My argument stays the same.

Honest researchers doing original research to the best of their abilities. That's how you get good results, and what drives progress. The rest is just bureaucracy. The need for replication will be just another bureaucratic add-on to catch dishonest researchers, and researchers who value prestige more than the truth.

[OnlyOneCannolo]

Giving science points to anyone for every replication they do is one idea. Another way to encourage replication without detracting from original research might be to encourage doing one replication. Maybe something like getting masters students to do them as their thesis or final project.