3 ms·
"...or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited." How is this a bad thing? The original investigators - as scientists
by Satifer 11y ago
"...or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited."
How is this a bad thing?
The original investigators - as scientists and seekers of the valid, the factual, the accurate - should welcome competing attempts, especially given that such attempts may reveal a faulty original analysis.
- Satifer 11y ago... there is just so much wrong with that editorial
- c3534l 11y agoIndeed. It is such a bizarrely anti-science attitude. I suspect the mindset is not about advancing scientific discourse, but maintaining the sense of prestige the journal's name carries.
- michaelhoffman 11y agoI'm not sure how well that prestige is earned. NEJM has to retract substantially more papers than any other high-profile journal: http://retractionwatch.com/2011/08/11/is-it-time-for-a-retraction-index/ http://retractionwatch.com/2011/08/11/is-it-time-for-a-retra... If the papers they publish get more scrutiny, they will undoubtedly have to retract even more.
- IanCal 11y agoI wonder if this is not a concern with high quality rebuttals but with poor, fast analysis conducted with an agenda. The worry that some people will root through the data to find any small issues and blow them far out of proportion. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I think it's possible that's more what they're talking about. Rather than, say, a lab coming back and saying "we analysed the BICEP data carefully and found the results are possibly the result of dust".