I think they're actually just saying bad actors are inevitable, inconsistent, and hard to identify ahead of time, so it's useless to be a scold when instead you can think of how to build systems that are more resilient to bad acts

▲

mike_hearn an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You have to do both. Offense and defense are closely related. You can make it hard to engage in bad acts, but if there are no penalties for doing so or trying to do so, then that means there are no penalties for someone just trying over and over until they find a way around the systems.

Academics that refuse to reply to people trying to replicate their work need to be instantly and publicly fired, tenure or no. This isn't going to happen, so the right thing to do is for the vast majority of practitioners to just ignore academia whilst politically campaigning for the zeroing of government research grants. The system is unsaveable.

	▲	michaelmrose 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps start by defunding any projects by institutions that insist on protecting fraudsters especially in the soft sciences. There is a lot of valuable hard science that IS real and has better standards.

▲

jbreckmckye 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To which my reply would be, we can engage in the analysis after we have taken down the paper.

It's still up! Maybe the answer to building a resilient system lies in why it is still up.