4 ms·
Of course there are lots. There's a bucket-load of papers get published every year, and sometimes reviewers are in a hurry too and miss things. A miniscule numb
by wbillingsley 10y ago
Of course there are lots. There's a bucket-load of papers get published every year, and sometimes reviewers are in a hurry too and miss things. A miniscule number of papers ever replicated, and replication studies regularly find reproducability rates of less than 50%.
Fortunately, critical thought does not stop at the point of publication. When researchers read each other's papers they (hopefully) do not blindly assume them to be bug-free.
- comstock 10y agoI think there's a general popular misunderstanding of the process of science as it is generally practiced. A single paper isn't as meaningful as you might think. It's more like an interesting blog post. You might use it as a starting point for your own investigation. A single paper does not represent "the truth" as we currently understand it. For that you need to have a broad scientific consensus. You might be able to get a better understanding of that from review papers citing recent advances in the field. Or from attending conferences/reading a broad range of papers yourself.