4 ms·
At least there's a standard for junk science -- it replicates or it doesn't.
by fipple 8y ago
At least there's a standard for junk science -- it replicates or it doesn't.
- hannob 8y agoit obviously skips the third option, which is the standard in most fields: nobody ever tries to replicate it.
- jf- 8y agoPlenty of people try to replicate, in trying to build on work from other labs. What they don’t do is publish when replication fails, but the failure to replicate usually becomes known in the community.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoIf people don't publish failures to replicate, how do you know how frequently replication failures become known in the community?
- jf- 8y agoThe same way you know that you walked out of your front door this morning without it having to be published in a scientific journal.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- daveFNbuck 8y agoTo be clear, my question is how you know how many failed replications there are that you never find out about.
- conception 8y agoThe 2nd part of academia that isn't being talked about here is citations. Getting published can be huge, but if your paper is actually garbage no one is going to cite it. That's a far better measure of the impact of a paper - who's using the data in it.