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 biorxiv: Science 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.