<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>twic</author><text>There was an interesting comment on a recent In The Pipeline post about the relationship between academia and industry in drug developmemnt [1]:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Academics do some good work in target discovery and validation, but not anywhere near as much as they think they do. Discovery in big pharma has to repeat everything, because about 80% of the time, the published result doesn’t hold up. I suspect this is the result of no job security among grad students and post docs, because we can almost always reproduce data from Japan, where asst profs generate the data. (And we can always reproduce published data from other big pharmas, always.)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blogs.sciencemag.org&amp;#x2F;pipeline&amp;#x2F;archives&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;rep-ocasio-cortez-and-where-drugs-come-from#comment-300356&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blogs.sciencemag.org&amp;#x2F;pipeline&amp;#x2F;archives&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;rep...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>We need to talk about systematic fraud</title><url>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00439-9</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>bounder</author><text>Wouldn&amp;#x27;t it be nice if there was a platform, some kind of hub where all research papers could be published and visible for anyone with an interest in the particular field. The platform would allow anyone, be it academics or just field experts to request for a change or addition of text. Anyone could see these (pull)requests and the initial author has the power to accept or deny it. This allows for peer reviews and corrections being integrated into the paper, making the whole process more organic. Any change to paper is logged and tracked so you could see the origin of a change and it&amp;#x27;s reason. Fraudulent papers could be marked by the research community as such.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m being a bit sarcastic here, but a technology such as git with a platform such as GitHub could maybe make the process of publishing and reviewing research papers easier to control. Maybe you have to tailor it a bit to make it easier to work with this use case. Like open source, peers can start adding and reviewing directly at the source, instead writing a new paper or writing to all of the scientific journals to issue a different statement.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>We need to talk about systematic fraud</title><url>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00439-9</url></story>