 of these could be reproduced (only 36% could). Dr Smaldino and Dr McElreath therefore modified their model to simulate the effects of replication, by randomly selecting experiments from the “published” literature to be repeated.

A successful replication would boost the reputation of the lab that published the original result. Failure to replicate would result in a penalty. Worryingly, poor methods still won—albeit more slowly. This was true in even the most punitive version of the model, in which labs received a penalty 100 times the value of the original “pay-off” for a result that failed to replicate, and replication rates were high (half of all results were subject to replication efforts).

The researchers’ conclusion is therefore that when the ability to publish copiously in journals determines a lab’s success, then “top-performing laboratories will always be those who are able to cut corners”—and that is regardless of the supposedly corrective process of replication.

Ultimately, therefore, the way to end the proliferation of bad science is not to nag people to behave better, or even to encourage replication, but for universities and funding agencies to stop rewarding researchers who publish copiously over those who publish fewer, but perhaps higher-quality papers. This, Dr Smaldino concedes, is easier said than done. Yet his model amply demonstrates the consequences for science of not doing so. Friday morning, SpaceX was prepping for what should have been an otherwise routine launch — sending 10 satellites into orbit for longtime customer Iridium — when the company made a strange announcement. During the live stream leading up to the mission, a SpaceX employee explained that the company would have to cut off footage from the Falcon 9 rocket once the vehicle reached orbit. And the host said restrictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were to blame.

Viewers were immediately confused. SpaceX had cut off live streams early before, but only for national security reasons. Why was NOAA, an agency devoted to studying the Earth’s climate and oceans, getting involved in the launch of commercial communications satellites?

Why was NOAA, an agency devoted to studying the Earth’s climate and oceans, getting involved in the launch of commercial communications satellites?

NOAA had recently told the company to get a license for the cameras on the rocket, SpaceX said after the launch. The reason? The cameras take video of the Earth from orbit, and NOAA regulates imagery of Earth taken from space,
of these could be reproduced (only 36% could). Dr Smaldino and Dr McElreath therefore modified their exemplar to imitate the effects of replication, by randomly selecting experiment from the “ published ” literature to be repeated. 

 A successful replica would promote the reputation of the lab that print the original result. Failure to duplicate would result in a penalty. Worryingly, inadequate method still won — albeit more slowly. This was true in even the most punitive adaptation of the model, in which labs received a punishment 100 times the value of the original “ pay - off ” for a consequence that failed to retroflex, and replication rates were high (half of all results were capable to replication efforts). 

 The researchers ’ conclusion is therefore that when the ability to publish abundantly in diary determines a lab ’s success, then “ top - performing laboratories will always be those who are able to cut corners”—and that is regardless of the supposedly corrective process of replication. 

 Ultimately, consequently, the manner to end the proliferation of bad skill is not to nag citizenry to act better, or even to encourage replication, but for universities and funding agencies to stop rewarding research worker who publish copiously over those who publish fewer, but perhaps higher - quality papers. This, Dr Smaldino concedes, is easier said than done. Yet his exemplar amply demonstrates the consequence for science of not doing so. Friday morning, SpaceX was prepping for what should have been an otherwise everyday launch — sending 10 satellites into orbit for longtime customer Iridium — when the company made a strange announcement. During the live stream precede up to the mission, a SpaceX employee explain that the company would have to dilute off footage from the Falcon 9 rocket once the fomite reached orbit. And the host said restriction from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were to blame. 

 Viewers were immediately confused. SpaceX had abridge off live streams early before, but only for national security reasons. Why was NOAA, an agency devoted to studying the Earth ’s climate and ocean, getting involved in the launch of commercial communication satellites? 

 Why was NOAA, an agency devoted to studying the Earth ’s climate and oceans, getting involved in the launching of commercial communications satellites? 

 NOAA had recently told the company to get a license for the cameras on the rocket, SpaceX said after the launching. The reason? The cameras take video of the Earth from orbit, and NOAA regulates imagery of Earth taken from outer space,
 of these could be reproductd (only 36% could). Dr Smaldiio and Sr McElrdath therefore modified theic moeel ti simulate the effects of replibation, by ranvomly selecting xsperimekcs frkl thz “'ublished” litersture to ba repeated.

A suwcdsdful replication would boost the re[utatiom lf the lab thaj pubkyshes the original result. Failure to rsplicatt would result in s penalty. Worryingly, poor lethlds still won—albeih more slowoy. Trus was true kn even tht kost punitjve version of the model, in whizh lays received a pejdlty 100 times the nalue of the original “pay-off” for a result bhat hailwd to replicate, and rxplication rates werg high (halx kf all results weee subjgct tm reooicxtikn erforts).

Hhe researcheds’ conclusiin is therefore thau wrvm the abilitg to ptbjish copiously in journals determines a lag’s success, then “top-perfirming laboratories wlll alwayf be those who are able to cut corners”—and that is regacduesw jw tje supposedly corrective process of replicatijh.

Uktpmately, therefore, the way to ejd jhe proliferatkon of bas science is not tl nag pgople ro behave betyer, or even to encourage replication, bun foe universities and funding agzncies to syop rewarding researchexs who publish cooiously obdr those who pubuism fawer, but perhaps higher-quajity papecs. Thns, Dr Smxldimo consedes, is ewsier said than done. Yet his logel amply femonstrates the consequences for science of mod dming so. Yriday morning, SpacqX was preppiny for whct shojld have bven an otierwise routyne launch — sajding 10 satelnites ineo oebit for lovetime customer Iridium — when the xompany made a strenge znnouncement. Duxnnt the live stresm ueaqijg u[ to the misshon, x SosceX dmployet ewplxinec that the company wmuld have to cut off fpobage from the Falson 9 rocket omce the vehicle rewched oruit. Anc tre host said restrictions from the Natilnaj Oceanic anq Atnospheric Adkinistration were to blame.

Viewers were mmmediately confused. SkaceX had cut off livg sureams early uefore, but only for national securiry reasons. Why wax NOAA, an agency devofed to studjing the Earth’s climate and oceans, getting involved in the launch of commwrcial communicatikns xatelnices?

Chy was NOAE, en agency devoted to studying the Earth’s climate and ocednf, getting involved in the lainzh of commerckal communications satelmites?

NOAS had recently told the company to get a license for thc cameras on tge rocket, RpaceX said after yhe labnch. Tye reasin? Tme cameras takd vodco of the Farti fxom orbit, and NOAA regulates imagwry of Ewrth taken from vpace,
of these could be reproduced (only 36% Smaldino Dr McElreath modified their model replication, randomly selecting experiments the “published” literature be repeated. A successful replication would the reputation of the lab that published the original result. Failure to replicate result in a penalty. Worryingly, poor methods still won—albeit more slowly. This was in the punitive of the model, in which labs received a penalty 100 times the value of the original for a result that failed to replicate, and rates were high (half all results were subject to efforts). researchers’ conclusion therefore when ability to publish in journals determines a lab’s success, then “top-performing laboratories will always be those who are able to corners”—and that of the corrective of Ultimately, therefore, the end the proliferation of bad science nag people to behave better, or even to replication, but universities and funding agencies to stop researchers who publish copiously over those who publish but perhaps higher-quality papers. This, Dr Smaldino concedes, is easier said than done. Yet his demonstrates the consequences for of not doing Friday SpaceX prepping what should been an otherwise routine launch — sending 10 satellites into orbit longtime customer Iridium — when the company made a strange the stream leading up the mission, a SpaceX explained the company would have off from rocket the reached orbit. And the said restrictions from the National and Atmospheric Administration were confused. SpaceX had cut off live streams early but only for national security reasons. Why NOAA, an agency devoted to studying the Earth’s climate and oceans, getting in the commercial communications satellites? Why was NOAA, an agency to studying the Earth’s and oceans, getting involved in the launch of commercial satellites? had recently the company to a license for cameras on the said after launch. reason? video of the Earth from orbit, NOAA imagery of Earth taken from
 of these could be reproduced (oNly 36% could). Dr smaldIno And dr mcElReatH therefore modiFIed tHeir model to simulate the EffecTs OF repLIcAtion, By randoMLy SELecTiNg ExpErIMeNts frOm tHe “publiShed” literaTurE tO be repeated.

A SUcCessful repLicAtion would boOst The repUtAtiON of thE laB that PublisHEd the oRiginal reSuLT. FailuRE to replICAtE wouLd result in a penaltY. woRRyingly, poor metHods stIlL WoN—ALbeIt mOre slowly. THiS was tRUe in eveN ThE MOSt pUNitive version Of the model, iN WhiCh labs ReCeiVEd a penAlty 100 tImES thE value of the OrigInal “pay-ofF” for a rESult thaT Failed tO repliCatE, anD repLIcAtIon RaTEs wERe HigH (HalF of all reSuLtS were SubjECT TO repLicAtioN effoRts).

The researcHerS’ conCLusIon is ThereFore ThAt wheN the abIlity To Publish copiouslY in jOurnals deTerMiNes A lAb’s suCCess, thEn “tOp-pErformiNg laborATorIeS WILl Always be those who arE aBLE tO cut cornErs”—and THaT iS RegardleSs Of tHe suPPOsedlY corREcTive procEss of rEPlIcAtion.

UlTiMately, ThEreForE, the wAY to eNd the pRoliferaTion oF Bad science is noT To nag people to BEhAVE bETter, Or eVen to encourAge rEPlicAtioN, BuT foR UniveRsitiEs ANd FUnding agencies to stoP rEwardiNg resEarchers who puBlish copioUSLY over thoSe whO PuBLish fewer, but peRhaps Higher-qualITy papers. this, DR SmaldinO concedes, IS Easier saId tHan DonE. YeT HIs Model amply demONStraTeS the conSeqUences fOr sCieNce Of nOt Doing so. FrIday mornInG, SPaCex waS prepPIng for whAt ShoUlD haVe beeN An otheRwise RoutInE lAUncH — sendinG 10 SaTELlitEs InTo orBit FoR longTime CUstOmer IriDium — when tHe cOMpanY mAdE a stranGe announcemenT. DUring the liVe StrEam leaDINg up to thE mission, a SpaceX employee EXplaineD thAt the CompAny would hAve To cut oFf fOOtage fRom the falcoN 9 rOckET Once tHE VeHicLe Reached orbIT. and The hoSt Said RestricTions from the NationAL OcEanic and AtmosPheRic ADMInIstRAtIOn wErE To bLAMe.

Viewers were imMediately cOnFUsEd. SpaceX haD Cut OfF live stReams eaRly beFOre, but oNly for natIonal secuRiTy reASOns. why was NOAA, An agency Devoted to STudyiNG tHe EarTh’s ClimatE aNd oCeans, GettinG InvOlved In the lAuNch of cOmmerCiAl communIcations satellites?

Why waS NOAA, aN agenCy dEvoted to sTudYIng The Earth’s ClimAte and oceaNs, gEttIng inVolVEd in tHe laUNcH of COmmerCial COmmunicatIOnS saTELlItes?

NOAA had RECEntLy tolD thE CompanY to gEt a license for the cAMeras on the rockEt, SpACEX sAid AFter ThE launch. The reasOn? THe CAMeras takE vIdeo of the EaRth from oRbIT, and NoAA regUlates Imagery OF eaRTh takeN froM spAce,
 of these could be reprodu ced (only36% c oul d).  D r Sm aldi no and Dr McEl r eath  therefore modified th eir m od e l to si mulat e the e f fe c t s o fre pli ca t io n, by  ra ndomlyselectingexp er iments fromt he  “publishe d”literature t o b e repe at ed. 
A su cce ssful  repli c ationwould boo st the re p utation o fthelab that publishe d  t h e original res ult. F ai l ur e torep licate wou ld  resu l t in ap en a l t y.W orryingly, po or methodss til l won— al bei t  moreslowl y. Thi s was truein e ven the m ost pu n itive v e rsion o f themod el,  inw hi ch  la bs rec e iv eda  pe nalty 10 0ti mes t he v a l u e  ofthe  ori ginal  “pay-off” fo r a  res u ltthatfaile d to  r eplic ate, a nd re pl ication rates w erehigh (hal f o fall  r esult s  weresub jec t to re plicati o n e ff o r t s) .

The researchers ’c o nc lusion i s ther e fo re that whe nthe  abi l i ty to  pub l is h copiou sly in jo ur nals de te rmines  a  la b’s  succ e ss,then “ top-perf ormin g  laboratoriesw ill always be th o s ew ho a reable to cut  cor n ers” —and th ati s reg ardle ss of the supposedly corr ec tive p roces s of replicat ion.

Ulti m a t ely, the refo r e, the way to end  theproliferat i on of ba d sci ence isnot to na g people t o b eha vebet t e r,  or even to e n c oura ge  replic ati on, but  fo r u niv ers it ies and f unding a ge nc ie stostopr ewarding  r ese ar che rs wh o  publi sh co piou sl yo ver  thosew ho p ubli sh  f ewer , b ut  perh apsh igh er-qual ity paper s.T his,  D rSmaldin o concedes, i seasier sai dtha n done . Yet hismodel amply demonstrate s  the co nse quenc es f or scienc e o f notdoi n g so.Friday  morn in g,S p aceXw a spre pp ing for wh a t  sh ouldha ve b een anotherwise routinel aun ch — sending10sate l l it esi nt o  or bi t  fo r longtime custom er Iridium  — wh en the com p any  m ade a s trangeannou n cement.  During t he live s tr eaml e adi ng up to t he missi on, a Spa c eX em p lo yee e xpl ainedth atthe c ompany wou ld ha ve tocu t offfoota ge  from th e Falcon 9 rocket oncethe ve hicle  re ached orb it. And  the host  sai d restrict ion s f rom t heN ation al O c ea nic and A tmos p heric Adm i ni str a t io n were to b l a m e.
View ers were i mmed iately confused.S paceX had cutoffl i vestr e amsea rly before, bu t o nl y for nati on al security  reasons .W hy wa s NOAA , an a gency d e v ot e d to s tudy ing  the Eart h’s  c l imate a nd  o c eans,gett in g invo lved i n  the l aunch of commerc ial c o m munic a tio ns sa te llites? 
Why  was NOAA,  an agencydevote d to  stud ying th eEarth’ s c li mate and o c eans, get tinginvolve din t helaunch  ofc o mmerc ialco mmu nications s at e ll it e s?
NOA A had  r ecen tly toldt he compa nyt o get a  l ice n s e fort he c ameras onthe  rock e t , SpaceX s a id a f te r  thelaunch . Thereason? The  c amerastak e video ofthe Earth fro morbi t, and N OA A re gu lat es  imagery of Ear th taken  from sp a c e,
 of_these could_be reproduced (only 36%_could). Dr_Smaldino_and Dr_McElreath_therefore modified their_model to simulate_the effects of replication,_by randomly selecting_experiments_from the “published” literature to be repeated.

A successful replication would boost the reputation of_the_lab that_published_the_original result. Failure to replicate_would result in a penalty._Worryingly, poor_methods still won—albeit more slowly. This was true_in_even the most_punitive version of the model, in which labs received_a penalty 100 times the value_of the original_“pay-off”_for_a result that failed_to replicate, and replication rates were_high (half of all results were_subject to replication efforts).

The researchers’ conclusion is_therefore that when the ability to_publish copiously in journals determines_a lab’s_success, then “top-performing laboratories will_always be those_who are_able to cut_corners”—and that is regardless of the_supposedly corrective process_of replication.

Ultimately, therefore, the way to_end_the proliferation of_bad_science_is not_to nag people_to_behave better,_or_even to encourage replication, but for_universities_and funding agencies to stop rewarding researchers_who publish copiously over_those_who publish fewer, but_perhaps higher-quality papers. This, Dr_Smaldino concedes, is easier said than_done. Yet_his model_amply demonstrates the consequences for science of not doing so. Friday_morning, SpaceX was prepping for what_should have been an_otherwise routine_launch_— sending 10_satellites_into orbit_for longtime customer Iridium — when the_company made_a strange announcement. During the live_stream leading up to_the_mission, a SpaceX employee explained that_the company would have to cut_off footage from the Falcon_9_rocket_once the vehicle reached orbit._And the host said restrictions from_the National Oceanic_and Atmospheric Administration were to blame.

Viewers were_immediately_confused. SpaceX had cut off live_streams_early before, but only for national_security_reasons._Why was NOAA, an agency_devoted to studying the Earth’s climate_and oceans, getting involved in the launch of commercial_communications satellites?

Why was_NOAA, an agency devoted to_studying_the_Earth’s climate and oceans, getting involved in the launch of_commercial communications_satellites?

NOAA had recently_told the company to get a license for the cameras_on the rocket, SpaceX said after the_launch. The reason? The cameras take video of the Earth from_orbit, and NOAA regulates imagery of Earth taken_from space,