3 ms·
That’s what the author said, but it seems suspect to me. I’d like to read the rejections and understand if this is just the authors interpretation. But looking
by new299 8y ago
That’s what the author said, but it seems suspect to me. I’d like to read the rejections and understand if this is just the authors interpretation.
But looking at what was done, it doesn’t seem novel. It’s just combining two datasets, and while journalistically important, doesn’t seem to be sufficiently novel for publication in most journals.
- naasking 8y ago> doesn’t seem to be sufficiently novel for publication in most journals. The question is why you think novelty is relevant. Replication studies aren't novel but are critically important to real science. Novelty is not and should not be mandatory.
- new299 8y agoMaybe, but it generally is. In most scientific disciplines I think you’d find it hard to publish simple replication of someone else’s work. You’d need to add some novel aspect, or extend the work slightly. For a healthcare replication study, I would guess you be hard pressed to get a replication study published for the same demographic, and same sample size as a previous study.
- naasking 8y ago> I think you’d find it hard to publish simple replication of someone else’s work. Yes, but this shouldn't be the case. The replication crisis clearly points out the problems with this.