The very short description of ERROR is that we pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors in order to strengthen the culture of error checking, error acceptance, and error correction in our field. As in other bug bounty programs, the payout scales with the magnitude of errors found. Less important errors pay a smaller fee, whereas more important errors that affect core conclusions yield a larger payout.
We expect most published research to contain at least some errors, and that we believe that the presence of minor errors does not negate an article’s scientific contribution. Indeed, our reward system pays bonuses to both authors and reviewers even when minor errors are found. We believe that our field would be strengthened by a culture of checking, accepting, and communicating errors.
ERROR offers reviewers a base fee of 250 to 1000 Swiss francs (roughly $300 to $1200), and bonuses of up to 2500 francs if they spot errors, depending on their severity.
The project planned to carry out 100 in-depth critiques in 4 years, but only nine have been completed so far, with eight more in the works. Candidate reviewers identified by ERROR often decline requests immediately, agree to do the work but don’t follow up, or ghost the project organizers after a few emails, Elson says.
We expect most published research to contain at least some errors
Have you set up the prediction markets on that? Not necessarily “is there an error in this paper”, but “in this group of publications, what fraction has an issue of this kind” and so on.
The ERROR Project: https://error.reviews/
Quoting Malte Elson
https://www.science.org/content/article/offering-scientists-cash-spot-errors-published-papers-doesn-t-work
Have you set up the prediction markets on that? Not necessarily “is there an error in this paper”, but “in this group of publications, what fraction has an issue of this kind” and so on.
I am not the researcher, edited the comment to add proper quoting