Hmmm. Maybe the R-Factor is NOT the answer.

In a recent post, TRN highlighted a recent working paper touting the benefits of something called an “R-Factor.” The R-Factor is a metric that would report — for each published empirical study — the reproducibility rate of that study in subsequent research.  In a recent blog at Discover magazine’s website, Neuroskeptic blogs:
“A new tool called the R-factor could help ensure that science is reproducible and valid, according to a preprint posted on biorxivScience with no fiction. The authors, led by Peter Grabitz, are so confident in their idea that they’ve created a company called Verum Analytics to promote it. But how useful is this new metric going to be?”
Neuroskeptic’s answer: “Not very.” To read more, click here.

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: