> 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?

▲

sroussey 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Incentives.

First X people that reproduce Y get Z percent of patent revenue.

Or something similar.

	▲	rtkwe 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most papers generate zero patent revenue or even lead to patents at all. For major drugs maybe that works but we already have clinical trials before the drug goes to market that validate the efficacy of the drugs.
	▲	jltsiren 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Patent revenue is mostly irrelevant, as it's too unpredictable and typically decades in the future. Academics rarely do research that can be expected to produce economic value in the next 10–20 years, because the industry can easily outspend the academia in such topics.
	▲	wizzwizz4 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm delighted to inform you that I have reproduced every patent-worthy finding of every major research group active in my field in the past 10 years. You can check my data, which is exactly as theory predicts (subject to some noise consistent with experimental error). I accept payment in cash.