3 ms·
1) Its not some random guy's job to replicate this stuff. Its the job of people getting paid to do this type of research (ie, the peers) to verify each other's
by nonbel 8y ago
1) Its not some random guy's job to replicate this stuff. Its the job of people getting paid to do this type of research (ie, the peers) to verify each other's work.
2) You're right, its been published for four years, seems to have had some sort of impact (since the news has mentioned it), and doesn't seem that complicated or expensive to do in principle. So, is there a direct replication?
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 8y ago1) I was replying to someone who asked “Given the journal and the time it was published, are we sure this is research that would replicate?”, as I am a person with “more knowledge of statistics and experimental methods”, the kind of person to whom the question was being asked. 2) I can look into your question, later, but you can answer it by searching for citations of the original research.
- nonbel 8y ago>"I can look into your question, later, but you can answer it by searching for citations of the original research." I think we both know that direct replications remain rare for this type of research and it is highly unlikely that one exists.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 8y agoYeah, unfortunately, that is a safe assumption these days. I did a brief search, though, and the paper appears to have made some rounds in the NIH.