> I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing chemical x which does y" you see "Researcher reproduces amazing results for chemical x which does y. First discovered by z".

Most people (that I talk to, at least) in science agree that there's a reproducibility crisis. The challenge is there really isn't a good way to incentivize that work.

Fundamentally (unless you're independent wealthy and funding your own work), you have to measure productivity somehow, whether you're at a university, government lab, or the private sector. That turns out to be very hard to do.

If you measure raw number of papers (more common in developing countries and low-tier universities), you incentivize a flood of junk. Some of it is good, but there is such a tidal wave of shit that most people write off your work as a heuristic based on the other people in your cohort.

So, instead it's more common to try to incorporate how "good" a paper is, to reward people with a high quantity of "good" papers. That's quantifying something subjective though, so you might try to use something like citation count as a proxy: if a work is impactful, usually it gets cited a lot. Eventually you may arrive at something like the H-index, which is defined as "The highest number H you can pick, where H is the number of papers you have written with H citations." Now, the trouble with this method is people won't want to "waste" their time on incremental work.

And that's the struggle here; even if we funded and rewarded people for reproducing results, they will always be bumping up the citation count of the original discoverer. But it's worse than that, because literally nobody is going to cite your work. In 10 years, they just see the original paper, a few citing works reproducing it, and to save time they'll just cite the original paper only.

There's clearly a problem with how we incentivize scientific work. And clearly we want to be in a world where people test reproducibility. However, it's very very hard to get there when one's prestige and livelihood is directly tied to discovery rather than reproducibility.

I'd personally like to see top conferences grow a "reproducibility" track. Each submission would be a short tech report that chooses some other paper to re-implement. Cap 'em at three pages, have a lightweight review process. Maybe there could be artifacts (git repositories, etc) that accompany each submission.

This would especially help newer grad students learn how to begin to do this sort of research.

Maybe doing enough reproductions could unlock incentives. Like if you do 5 reproductions than the AC would assign your next paper double the reviewers. Or, more invasively, maybe you can't submit to the conference until you complete some reproduction.

> The challenge is there really isn't a good way to incentivize that work.

What if we got Undergrads (with hope of graduate studies) to do it? Could be a great way to train them on the skills required for research without the pressure of it also being novel?

> Eventually you may arrive at something like the H-index, which is defined as "The highest number H you can pick, where H is the number of papers you have written with H citations."

It's the Google search algorithm all over again. And it's the certificate trust hierarchy all over again. We keep working on the same problems.

Like the two cases I mentioned, this is a matter of making adjustments until you have the desired result. Never perfect, always improving (well, we hope). This means we need liquidity with the rules and heuristics. How do we best get that?

> I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing chemical x which does y" you see "Researcher reproduces amazing results for chemical x which does y. First discovered by z".

But nobody want to pay for it

That feels arbitrary as a measure of quality. Why isn't new research simply devalued and replication valued higher?

"Dr Alice failed to reproduce 20 would-be headline-grabbing papers, preventing them from sucking all the air out of the room in cancer research" is something laudable, but we're not lauding it.

usually you reproduce previous research as a byproduct of doing something novel "on top" of the previous result. I dont really see the problem with the current setup.

sometimes you can just do something new and assume the previous result, but thats more the exception. youre almost always going to at least in part reproducr the previous one. and if issues come up, its often evident.

thats why citations work as a good proxy. X number of people have done work based around this finding and nobody has seen a clear problem

theres a problem of people fabricating and fudging data and not making their raw data available ("on request" or with not enough meta data to be useful) which wastes everyones time and almost never leads to negative consequences for the authors

> you have to measure productivity somehow,

No, you do not have to. You give people with the skills and interest in doing research the money. You need to ensure its spent correctly, that is all. People will be motivated by wanting to build a reputation and the intrinsic reward of the work

> If you measure raw number of papers (more common in developing countries and low-tier universities), you incentivize a flood of junk.

This is exactly what rewarding replication papers (that reproduce and confirm an existing paper) will lead to.

> The challenge is there really isn't a good way to incentivize that work.

Ban publication of any research that hasn't been reproduced.