3 ms·
Peer review does not imply reproducibility, and it's the latter that is the problem. I can confirm, as a reviewer, that your methodology and analysis looks sen
by gcp 10y ago
Peer review does not imply reproducibility, and it's the latter that is the problem.
I can confirm, as a reviewer, that your methodology and analysis looks sensible, but the flaws may be deeper, and the fact that you didn't publish the 19 other studies that failed, but that this is the "lucky one", or that you simply cherry picked the data, is not something I can see as a reviewer.
This is especially true if the experiment is nontrivial to re-do.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago" Peer review does not imply reproducibility, and it's the latter that is the problem." I think this is the key to it, I'm suggesting that reproducibility should be part of considering something peer-reviewed, but of course as currently practised, that isn't true. Of course in a software metaphor, that would probably cover both code review and QA, which is sometimes done by a different job role which further muddies the water.
- pvaldes 10y agoThis would be like expecting a car brand to open its code to its competitors before to release a new product. Will lead typically also to the peers rushing to publish the same discovering on disguise before the original.