I like your idea about collaborating on bigger experiments. One big experiment can be both more convincing and more accessible than 1000 little ones all measuring different incomparable things that take 1000s of man-hours just to identify if they're what you want or not.
The trouble is everyone wants to be the special snowflake discovering the special effect in their own special experiment, so now we have too much messy unreliable and inaccessible data to be of much use in the real world.
That's certainly one way to do it. Maybe the best way. But there's all sorts of things to study, and it may be valuable to try and study them in isolation.
That may not be a bad thing. Having different solutions for different categories of experiments, or even just alternatives to select from could be useful.
That's a great idea but you really only need half of it. Design the experiments in enough detail that unrelated teams could conduct them, then publish the results no matter the outcome. That's probably enough to catch most of the loose research out there.
Good to know. It was my first such experiment, and it does boil down to a few core principles I wanted to apply. I'll write something up once things calm down a little bit.
It's better if all your experiments are independent from each other however.
reply