What José Luis Ricón thinks about metascience
Engineer and writer at Nintil, where he has spent years reading the empirical literature on how science is funded and organised — grant peer review, funding lotteries, whether ideas are getting harder to find — and reporting what the evidence does and does not support.
José Luis Ricón did not write this page.
We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.
Filter metascience · Newest first
Only José Luis Ricón on metascience. See everyone on metascience
3 dated positions, 2019 to 2022, in their own words. Our reading of what José Luis Ricón has said — not written or endorsed by them.
-
Their wordsIf we know the invariants of the problem at hand we can make assertions about the best way to solve that problem now and in the future.
- 14 months earlier
-
Their wordsI have reviewed before the effectiveness of peer review at figuring out "what's good" in the context of grant awards, finding that peer review as currently practiced does substantially better than chance at predicting future impact, especially for the most impactful of the papers; but at the same time is is far from perfect, leaving plenty of variance unexplained.
↗Fund people, not projects IV: Scientific egalitarianism and lotteriesnintil.com 1st of 3 in this piece
- 19 months earlier
-
Their wordsI'm of the view, though this would take another post to explain, that the problems that science suffers have more to do with how science is done (funded, organized, produced) rather than how much money is gets, in general.