This is absolutely BRILLIANT!
a tool designed to address the File Drawer Problem as it pertains to psychological research: the distortion in the scientific literature that results from the failure to publish non-replications. Most journals (especially high impact journals that specialize in publishing surprising findings that have low prior odds of being correct) are rarely willing to publish even carefully conducted non-replications that question the validity of a finding that they have published. Often the only people who learn about non-replications are those who happen to be “plugged in” to social networks that circulate this information in a fragmentary and inefficient way. Even textbook authors are rarely well informed about the replicability of the results that they report on, and may often rely upon results that are known to be dubious by those working in the area.
What a great idea. One of the reasons I recently held out as a justification for the LPU approach to publishing is the hoarding of not-enough-for-pub data out there that might save someone else a whole hell of a lot of time. Well, chasing after a supposed published finding as your control or launching point for new studies can land you in one of those little potholes. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a half dozen (or more) attempts to replicate an effect to (at the very least) tell you which are the key conditions and which can be manipulated for your purposes?
Other fields should try something like this.
Disclaimer: I’m professionally acquainted with one or more of the people apparently involved in this effort.
Regressive taxation schemes and J&D psychology sneering aside, this proves we have the best job imaginable
March 30, 2012
You may have noticed lottery mania has reached a bit of a peak lately what with the over $640 Million prize anticipated in the 42-state Mega Millions drawing.
Of course if you win tonight and take the cash payout on the $640 million, you’d get $462 million, according to the lottery. Or you could opt to receive annual payments of $24 million a year for 26 years (before taxes).
The Lefties will inform you of the great evils of lottery as a replacement for a more progressive tax scheme. Point out that it is mostly the unwashed, poor and working-person crowd that throws down the most support for lottery. Bah, you say, “buzzkills!”. Well, perhaps……
Likewise, the Judgment and Decision experimental psychologists will blather on about how lottery playing is a sucker’s game. And yes indeed it is. Because the stats don’t work out as optimal in gaming the end stage of large amounts of play. Of course, people who actually know something about judgment will tell them that when the entry price is low (like a buck a ticket) and the payoff is not just the chance of a fabulous, lifechanging amount but also the pleasant fantasy part in anticipating what you would do with the money….
genomicrepairman indulged in a little bit of fantasy himself and I do admit that is a damn fine idea.
I thought about this
long and hard for about three seconds on my drive in today after scanning GR’s post at a stoplight.
I conclude this.
$24 million per year for a quarter of a century….hmmmm. Ok, let’s just ballpark the taxes as half and round down to $10M. That’s some chazange. And I’m sure a spouse would have something to say about the prize so let’s drop that to a cool $5M per year. And let’s suppose some of you are out there in institutions with 100% overhead for charitable giving. That leave’s you with $2.5M to pour into your laboratory’s direct-cost fund each and every year!
Imagine that. No more worries about funding your lab. No need for a grant at all. Pure, endowed chair and endowed slush fund. Schweet.
All you have to do is make it to tenure and the University would have a damn hard time getting rid of you for just about anything. Even if you fail to publish for a year or two while you are working on some harebrained idea you had.
Are you telling me you would quit your position to tour the earth? Hell, if you have a half decent lab manager and a post doc or two you could still tour the earth, surfacing every couple of weeks in an obscure Internet cafe in Barbaloot to check in!
There is no way in hell I’d quit my job if I won this lotto. Take the financial headaches away and it turns from being a damn good job to the best thing to do in the entire world, if you ask me….you feel any differently?
ps. It would have to be like this.
We said we would tell no one. We would hire an attorney and anonymously collect our winnings under the cover of a trust. We would not take any publicity photos or announce our newfound wealth with conspicuous consumption. We might get a pool because we all love to swim and it’s good exercise. But generally no one would guess that my husband and I had struck it rich.
There are just too many examples of former lottery winners who end up losing their millions because they overspent and overindulged themselves.
sekrit trust, right. otherwise the postdocs wouldn’t work hard enough….
March 30, 2012
At what age did you get your first cell phone and what
excuse reason drove your decision? (I ask due to a tangential line of thought emerging from comment from a LaTex fan decrying the technological conservatism of the Academy.)
I was 31 and there was wedding planning involved.
March 27, 2012
In addition, from an editorial perspective, copyright helps to prevent elements such as plagiarism, multiple submission and fraud in journal articles, and whilst is does not actually detect these elements, it acts as a protective measure to uphold the quality of journals.
What the hell did this say? They can’t detect shenanigans (score another to post-pub processes) but they…huh? What? Reluctantly post retractions? Send out a cease and desist letter from the same bunker that hit @FakeElsevier?
March 27, 2012
Some commenter at Rock Talk complained about a recent grant review:
I just received the most terrible of reviews, where the reviewer was not only biased but highly inflammatory, prejudicial and aggressive. I must say I was totally taken aback. When you say things like “…terribly convoluted approach”,…”PI has clearly no clue…” how something works, trashes my published work by saying these pubs “are a gross exaggeration”….the list goes on and on. Even as a relatively senior investigator, I was very shocked by the mean-spirited nature of the comments. I cannot imagine how it would destroy a new investigator.
I am having trouble seeing it. I mean sure “no clue” is directed at the applicant rather than the application, but it’s pretty tame stuff. If a reviewer thinks your papers exaggerate? Presumably in wild speculative interpretation that runs beyond your data? Seems okay and even obligatory to express this. The “terribly convoluted approach” comment is a pretty inoffensive way to get to the heart of this common failing of grants as well…I’m not seeing how you could put it more “nicely”.
March 25, 2012
Some dim bulb named David Levy has trotted out a fairly impressive amount of ignorance about college and University professors in the US. Honestly, I’m failing to see one substantive point that matches reality for the vast majority of professors (and adjunct instructors) today. This guy is sadly out of touch or cherry picking from a handful of anecdotes…..or just making it up. Maybe this is one of those works of performance art? A Kylian “not intended to e a factual statement”?
Allow Dr Zen to retort.
March 23, 2012
The NIH K22 mechanism has been around for some time. When I first discovered it I was amazed that the NIH had a genuine, Borroughs-Welcome style transition mech. This predated the K99/R00.
Trouble was, most (all?) ICs that used it were like NHLBI and reserve it for intramural postdocs.
What a crock.