4 ms·
Is there any research that show being peer reviewed in fact makes a difference? General speaking, I would think research should just speak for itself.
by nxzero 10y ago
Is there any research that show being peer reviewed in fact makes a difference? General speaking, I would think research should just speak for itself.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoGenerally speaking, you think... well that's nice. Meanwhile, in the world of the scientific method, the issue is that everyone needs to know that you didn't just write something down for fun or profit. If your results can't be replicated... thbbpt.
- trentmb 10y ago> If your results can't be replicated Results aren't replicated during peer review, are they?
- Aelinsaar 10y agoNot necessarily, but at least the methods can be evaluated to see how likely it is that they can be. A black box with, "Trust us, here's what we found" is weak as hell, unless you're still into Pons and Fleischmann I guess.
- nxzero 10y agoStrange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. Science is not a singlar effort, nor is peer review without replication. Please question your assumptions about what science really is.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoStrange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. That's the exact opposite of what I said. What's wrong with you?
- ethbro 10y agoDepends on the publication, I believe. There was a comment here a bit ago where someone pointed out that such journals do exist (for example, Organic Synthesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses ).
- chongli 10y agoThe elephant in the room with science across the board is that replication studies are not an attractive way to pull in grant money. It's a big problem!
- Lawtonfogle 10y agoSo given how little work is done reproducing findings, there is minimal value?