Who Should Do Replication Labor?

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1 (4):516-537 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

. Scientists, for the most part, want to get it right. However, the social structures that govern their work undermine that aim, and this leads to nonreplicable findings in many fields. Because the social structure of science is a decentralized system, it is difficult to intervene. In this article, I discuss how we might do so, focusing on self-corrective-labor schemes. First, I argue that we need to implement a scheme that makes replication work outcome independent, systematic, and sustainable. Second, I use these three criteria to evaluate extant proposals, which place the responsibility for replication on original researchers, consumers of their research, students, or many labs. Third, on the basis of a philosophical analysis of the reward system of science and the benefits of the division of cognitive labor, I propose a scheme that satisfies the criteria better: the professional scheme. This scheme has two main components. First, the scientific community is organized into two groups: discovery researchers, who produce new findings, and confirmation researchers, whose primary function is to do confirmation work. Second, a distinct reward system is established for confirmation researchers so that their career advancement is separated from whether they obtain positive experimental results.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Mental Labor and its Creativity.Shingo Shibata - 1980 - Russian Studies in Philosophy 19 (3):38-51.
Can the Behavioral Sciences Self-correct? A Social Epistemic Study.Felipe Romero - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 60 (C):55-69.
The role of information and replication in selection processes.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):538-538.
Linguistic labor and its division.Jeff Engelhardt - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (7):1855-1871.
Fraud in science an economic approach.James R. Wible - 1992 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22 (1):5-27.
Some Remarks on the Division of Cognitive Labor.Marco Viola - 2015 - RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 3.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-10-20

Downloads
45 (#337,378)

6 months
8 (#292,366)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Felipe Romero
University of Groningen

Citations of this work

Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis.Felipe Romero - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (11):e12633.
Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges.Mattia Andreoletti - 2020 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (3):135-151.
Self-correction in science: Meta-analysis, bias and social structure.Justin P. Bruner & Bennett Holman - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 78:93-97.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The division of cognitive labor.Philip Kitcher - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):5-22.
The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.Michael Strevens - 2003 - Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):55-79.
The Division of Cognitive Labor.Philip Kitcher - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):5-22.

View all 11 references / Add more references