I dunno. Offhand, I guess whoever is citing the work would need to replicate it, but only if it's cited sufficiently (overall number of citations, considered foundational, etc...)
This could help your career by increasing the probability that the work you're citing is more likely accurate, and as a result, your work is also likely more accurate.
A typical paper may cite dozens or hundreds of other papers. This does not sound feasible. It honestly seems like it would worsen the existing problem and force scientists to focus even more on their own original research in isolation from others, to avoid the expense of running myriad replication experiments that they likely don't have the funding and personnel to do.
Academia's values are not objective. Why is it that replicating or refuting a study is not seen on par as being a co-author of said study? There is nothing set in stone preventing this, only the current academic culture.
Because I want to do original research, and be known for doing original research. Only if I fail at that, I might settle for being a guy who reproduces others’ work (which basically means the transition from a researcher to an engineer).
Whether or not you would be doing original research depends on whether the cited work can be replicated.
If the cited work is unable to be replicated, and you try to replicate but get different results, then you would be doing original research, and then you can base further work on your initial original study that came to a different result.
On the flip side, if you are able to replicate it, then you are doing extra work initially, but after replicating the work you've cited, the work you've done is more likely to be reproducible by someone else.
The amount of citations needed to require replication could itself be a function of how easy it is to replicate work across an entire field.
A field where there's a high rate of success in replicating work could have a higher threshold for requiring replication compared to a field where it's difficult to replicate work.
So you want to be known for original results, which cannot be confirmed to be true? So what kind of results are they?
Also your mentality is exactly part of the problem: you arrogantly believe that replication work is beneath you and that originality is all that matters.
So you want to be known for original results, which cannot be confirmed to be true?
My results can be confirmed by anyone who wishes to do so, because I always publish my code.
you arrogantly believe that replication work is beneath you
I’ve done plenty of replication work when it was needed for my research. Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility and it is not usually required to perform original research.
>Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility
so you want to do science.... which requires there to be replication.... but somehow it's not your responsibility to replicate anything? last I checked the scientific method has to be followed through all the steps to be valid, not just the ones that you personally like
I usually replicate someone's results for one of the two reasons:
1. I don't trust the results
2. I want to understand their work in sufficient detail
Usually these reasons apply when I'm building directly on top of someone's work. This is not always the case. Often my research is based on ideas which could be tested by generating my own results. As long as I can replicate my own results I don't see a problem.
If what the parent poster discovers is interesting, and other people consider it to be valuable, they will replicate their results in the process of building on top of it.
High-impact work that people care about gets built on, and replicated. Low impact work does not.
