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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

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

Replication Is for Meta-Analysis.Samuel C. Fletcher - 2022 - Philosophy of Science 89 (5):960-969.
An Investigation of Scientific Phenomena.David Colaco - 2019 - Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Priority and privilege in scientific discovery.Mike D. Schneider & Hannah Rubin - 2021 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 89 (C):202-211.
Why We Disagree About the Success of Replications.Johanna Sarisoy - 2025 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 56 (3):307-324.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-10-20

Downloads
138 (#317,717)

6 months
40 (#212,437)

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.
Is forensic science in crisis?Michał Sikorski - 2022 - Synthese 200 (3):1-34.
Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges.Mattia Andreoletti - 2020 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (3):135-151.
The replication crisis and philosophy.Wesley Buckwalter - 2022 - Philosophy and the Mind Sciences 3.

View all 12 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.
P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.Uri Simonsohn, Leif D. Nelson & Joseph P. Simmons - 2014 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (2):534-547.

View all 9 references / Add more references